(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Analysis of 70,000 rural rehabilitation families"

Historic, archived document 

Do not assume content reflects current 
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
THE FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
AND 

THE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 
COOPERATING 




Analysis Of 70,000 Rural Rehabilitation Families 



BY E. L. KIRKPATRICK 



SOCIAL RESEARCH REPORT NO. IX 
WASHINGTON, D. C„ AUGUST 1938 



In order that administrators might be supplied with needed informa- 
tion concerning the problems and conditions with which its program is con- 
cerned, the Resettlement Administration (absorbed September 1, 1937, by the 
Farm Security Administration) with the cooperation of the Bureau of Agri- 
cultural Economics conducted a number of research investigations. This 
is one of a series of reports on these researches. Others will be made 
available to administrators of programs for the welfare of rural people 
as rapidly as they are completed. Reports to be issued, as planned at this 
time, include: 

I. An Analysis of Methods and Criteria Used in Selecting Families for 
Colonization Projects, by John B. Holt. 
II. Tenure of New Agricultural Holdings in Several European Countries, 
by Erich Kraemer. 

III. Living Conditions and Population Migration in Four Appalachian Coun- 
ties, by L. S. Dodson. 
IV. Social Status and Farm Tenure - Attitudes and Social Conditions of 
Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers, by E. A. Schuler. 
V. Family Selection on a Federal Reclamation Project - Tule Lake Di- 
vision of the Klamath Irrigation Project, Oregon-California, by 
Marie Jasny. 

VI. A Basis for Social Planning in Coffee County, Alabama, by Karl Shafer. 
VII. Influence of Drought and Depression on a Rural Community - A Case 
Study in Haskell County, Kansas, by A. D. Edwards. 
VIII, Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture, by Carl C. Taylor, 
Helen W. Wheeler, and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 
IX. Analysis of 70,000 Rural Rehabilitation Families, by E. L. Kirk- 
patrick. 

X. Standards of Living in Four Southern Appalachian Mountain Counties, 
by C. P. Loomis and L. S. Dodson. 
XI. Standards of Living of the Residents of Seven Rural Resettlement 
Communities, by C. P. Loomis and Dwight M. Davidson, Jr. 
XII. The Standard of Living of Farm and Village Families in Six South 
Dakota Counties, 1935, by W. F. Kumlien, C. P. Loomis, et. al. (Pub- 
lished by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brook- 
. ings, South Dakota.) 
XIII. Standards of Living in the Great Lakes Cut-Over Area, by C. P. Loomis, 
Joseph J. Lister, and Dwight M. Davidson, Jr. 
XIV. Standards of Living in an Indian-Mexican Village and on a Reclamation 
Project, by C. P. Loomis and 0. E. Leonard. 
XV. Standards of Living in Six Virginia Counties, by C. P. Loomis and 
B. L. Hummel. 

XVI. Social Relationships and Institutions in an Established Rurban Com- 
munity, South Holland, Illinois, by L. S. Dodson. 
XVII. Migration and Mobility of Rural Population in the United States, by 
Conrad Taeuber and C. E. Lively. 
XVIII. Social Relationships and Institutions in Seven New Rural Communities, 
by C. P. Loomis. 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 

Chapter II. RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF 

IN ALABAMA 5 

Chapter III. ARKANSAS RURAL RELIEF AND 

REHABILITATION LOAN 19 

Chapter IV. STANDARD FARM PLAN CASES 

IN REGION II 33 

Chapter V. STANDARD FARM PLAN CASES 

IN REGION X 47 

Chapter VI. STANDARD FARM PLAN CLIENTS IN 

SELECTED TYPES OF FARMING AREAS 60 

Chapter VII. SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS OF 

THE SURVEYS 77 

Appendix. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 81 



FOREWORD 



This study arose out of an attempt to bring together all of the concrete, 
available research data on rural rehabilitation clients. It is not, therefore, 
a report on an integral study. In two States, Arkansas and Alabama, fairly 
detailed analyses were made of the farm families which were transferred from 
relief to rehabilitation rolls. The analysis is therefore based upon the data 
contained on the referral records. A more detailed report on the data than is 
contained here was published by the agricultural experiment station in Arkansas 
in "Characteristics of Arkansas Rehabilitation Clients." The analysis in this 
report, in chapters II and III, is of 30,000 cases in Alabama and 20,000 cases 
in Arkansas. 

Definite research projects were set up in Regions II and X of the Re- 
settlement Administration, now the Farm Security Administration, and the. data 
from these studies for the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Mon- 
tana, Wyoming, and Colorado are contained in chapters IV and V. The analysis 
is of approximately 11,600 cases in the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and 
Minnesota and of 4,600 cases in the States of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. 
The scheme of analysis in these two segments of the study again was not iden- 
tical, and for this reason each study is presented in a separate chapter. 

The third segment of the study was made by sending questionnaires to 
carefully selected States to be filled by rural rehabilitation supervisors. 
These schedules were filled from data contained on standard rehabilitation 
forms, and this section of the report therefore reveals more concerning the 
plans and progress of rehabilitation clients than do those sections which 
could not go beyond the characteristics of clients' at the time they were ac- 
cepted in the rehabilitation program. Furthermore, the samples were selected 
by type-farming areas and therefore come nearer giving a national picture than 
any other section of the report. This section covers approximately 3,000 cases, 

The reader will recognize that the data contained in the report from one 
chapter to another are not homogeneous either in the date at which the data 
were gathered, the type of samples studied, or the type of analysis made. It 
was felt, however, that it was worth while to bring together the results of 
these different analyses in one report and thus conserve the best information 
available on as large a number of rehabilitation clients as was possible. 

Chapter VII attempts to select and present in brief form the common 
outstanding characteristics of the clients studied in each segment of the 
report . 

CARL C. TAYLOR, 

In Charge, Division of Farm Population ■ 
and Rural Life, Bureau of Agricultural 
Economics; and Social Research Section, 
Farm Security Administration. 



ANALYSIS OF 70,000 RURAL REHABILITATION FAMILIES 



By E. L. Kirkpatrick 



Chapter I 
INTRODUCTION 



With the inauguration of the Federal Emergency Relief Program in the fall 
of 1933, little differentiation could be made by those in charge between the 
types of assistance given to rural and urban families. In an effort to meet the 
pressing needs, and since adequate consideration could not be given to specific 
needs caused by varying conditions, aid was granted to distressed farm and un- 
employed city residents on a similar basis. 

Among the very first calls for assistance to farmers were the needs 
for fertilizer, seeds, feed, and even subsistence goods, caused by the severe 
drought of the Southwest and the Central Great Plains region. Next came the 
demands for work as well as direct aid from the poorer farming sections like the 
Lakes States Cut-Over and the Appalachian Highlands as means of getting many 
disadvantaged families through the winter. Finally, there were requests for 
capital - loans at reasonable rates - whereby numerous farmers could in a con- 
structive way get back on a self-supporting basis. Even people in the most 
productive agricultural areas were ready for this kind of assistance. 

Experience with the program during the fall and winter of 1933 soon 
convinced those who were administering relief that farmers needed a type of aid 
quite different from that extended to other worthy families. They needed help 
not only to tide them over an all-time low in agriculture but to become re- 
established as self-respecting citizens on an acceptable standard of living and 
to become normal purchasers in their communities. If provided with seeds, 
fertilizers, tools, livestock, and perhaps even land, they could again raise 
their own foodstuffs and provide their clothing and other necessities of family 
living. In other words, they could keep off the relief rolls or work their way 
out of emergency-dole situations. 

It was with this idea in mind that the Rural Rehabilitation Division 
was added to the Federal Emergency Relief Program in April 1934. This was 
an arrangement whereby capable farmers were no longer to be given direct aid 
but, when circumstances warranted it, were to receive loans that might be used 
for one or another of the following specific purposes: (1) to buy feed for 
livestock. (2) to buy seed, fertilizers, livestock, and equipment to produce 
crops, (3) to provide commodities for subsistence until sufficient foodstuffs 
could be raised for household uses, (4) to obtain medical care and other 



- 2 - 



special family-living goods or services, and (5) to meet pressing existing obli- 
gations. 1/ The loans, extended at a reasonable rate of interest, were to be 
repaid within a 5-year period; limited grants for subsistence were also made 
wherever necessary until the client could achieve a self-help standing. 

Although the general procedure" was outlined by the Federal Emergency 
Relief Administration, the local program for extending aid was determined large- 
ly by the States. Many of them organized Rural Rehabilitation Corporations to 
serve as financial agents in meeting the farm-relief needs more feasibly and 
effectively. Thus the rehabilitation idea moved forward at different rates of 
speed or development across the country, with the South leading in the number of 
farmers who received advances. In February 1935, more than 90 percent of all 
cases were in the 10 southern States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas, 
with Alabama and Louisiana having more than one-half of the total number, 2/ 

The making of loans continued under this arrangement until the formation 
of the Resettlement Administration, July 1935, (succeeded by the Farm Security 
Administration, September 1, 1937) when standard farm-management plans and or- 
ganized supervision to loan clients became a part of the rehabilitation system. 
Of course, the loans already made for which no satisfactory farm plan had been 
or could be drawn up were continued temporarily, and direct-relief grants, in- 
stead of having been terminated by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 
were introduced as a means of helping certain needy farm families until other 
arrangements could be made to care for them under the new system. Thus, in 
some instances, the subsistence grant supplemented the standard farm plan loan; 
in others, it served to tide through an emergency until such a plan was found 
feasible or arrangements could be made with the proper agency for extending the 
type of aid deemed most advisable. 

By June 1935, the number of rehabilitation cases had reached more than 
200,000. These had been taken from the relief rolls primarily and, as already 
pointed out, they were centered largely in the Southern States; the exceptions 
were Minnesota and South Dakota, in the North Central States, which were severe- 
ly stricken by the drought, 

Some of the States with these heavy rehabilitation loads went into the 
program hurriedly. In a few instances almost wholesale transfers from rural 
relief rolls were made, after which there was a definite attempt to classify 
the cases according to suitability for particular kinds of farming and to ad- 
just the types and amounts of aid accordingly. It became most evident at this 
point that there was need for a study or analysis of the load in order to fur- 



1/ For further information on the purpose of loans or the kinds of capital 
and subsistence goods for which the funds provided might be used, see Asch, 
Berta and Mangus , A. R. . Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research 
Mon. VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1937, 
p. 16. 

2/ Ibid., p. 17. 



- 3 - 



nish specific information to help guide the rehabilitation venture. This need 
was realized early in several States and work projects were set up to use as 
effectively as possible available funds for "white collar" relief in conducting 
the necessary studies. 

Alabama and Arkansas were among the first to analyze their rural relief- 
case loads and each proceeded on practically a 100 percent sample basis, the 
former as early as September 1934, and the latter as of June 1935. Later, the 
standard farm plan rehabilitation case loads in several other States were stud- 
ied as regional groups by the Resettlement Administration, including Michigan, 
Wisconsin, and Minnesota as Region II, and Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana as 
Region X. Finally, selected samples from a number of States representing dif- 
ferent types of farming were studied by the Rehabilitation Division and the 
Social Research Section of the Resettlement Administration. 3/ 

These studies were of an emergency nature, intended to get quickly in- 
formation for use by those who were concerned with the selection of families 
and the guidance or direction of the program. Information was sought on such 
matters as residence, tenure status, occupational experience, and mobility of 
clients; social characteristics of the families or households; economic aspects 
including size of farm, crop acreage, income, and financial assets; and methods 
of family selection. Although conducted under handicaps and with workers who 
were in many instances not experienced in doing research, the studies provided 
valuable data for reference and use in making standard farm and home plans, 
selecting the families, and checking the progress of the client in his re- 
habilitation endeavor. 

It is the principal purpose of this report to bring together and co- 
ordinate as well as practicable the most pertinent results from these scattered 
studies, for still further use in guidance or direction of the rural rehabilita- 
tion program by States or regions, or on a national basis. Dealing with the 
lower stratum of farm population about which there has been little social re- 
search in the past, the findings are significant to rural life, particularly 
from the standpoint of farm security in relation to the national welfare. 
They carry many points of interest to all who are concerned with further attempts 
to aid under-privileged or disadvantaged families in agriculture. 

Procedure in Analysis 

It has been pointed out that some of the studies covered the entire 
rural-relief load at or near the inception of the rehabilitation program, 
while others had to do only with those clients who were accepted for loans on a 



3/ Among these types and the States in which units of study were conducted 
are: Flue-Cured Tobacco Farming, North Carolina; Delta Section of the Cotton 
Belt, Mississippi; Hill Section of the Cotton Belt, Arkansas; Livestock Sec- 
tion of the Corn Belt, Illinois; Western Section of the Corn Belt, Nebraska; 
Spring Wheat Farming, North Dakota; and Cash Grain-Poultry-Fruit Farming, 
Oregon; all of these are considered in this report. 



- 4 - 



standard farm plan basis after the program was much farther advanced and co- 
ordinated nationally or by regions. Some included almost a 100 percent sample 
and others were limited to as few as 10 percent of the total cases to represent 
specific types of farming. As all studies were planned and conducted separate- 
ly, they vary considerably. Consequently the units are considered separately, 
and the results of all are summarized only in a broad way to indicate what the 
rehabilitation process may be doing for and to the families involved and to 
suggest further possible consideration of an important nation-wide program for 
the improvement of agriculture. 4/ 



4/ The data used in the preparation of this report represent conditions 
when the rehabilitation process was in an experimental stage. They indicate 
situations just prior to the initiation of the present program which is much 
more fully developed and stabilized. The information is presented to portray 
the situation at a time when steps had to be taken for alleviation of circum- 
stances that might soon have become drastic. 



- 5 - 



Chapter II 



RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF IN ALABAMA 



The analysis for Alabama included all rural families on relief in the 
State as of September 1934. For approximately 30,000 families schedules were 
filled by case workers in the various counties and these schedules were edited 
at a central office in Montgomery, According to those who planned and super- 
vised the study, schedules were designed specifically (1) to provide information 
for county committees and the State Relief Administration for classifying 
families in the new rehabilitation program and (2) to furnish a basis of factual 
data to be used as a guide in further planning. 5/ 

When the cases were considered by county case workers as to the likeli- 
hood of their becoming self-supporting, they were rated in one of three classes: 

(1) those capable of managing capital advances, a class largely composed of 
former owners and tenants whose status had been changed by the depression; 

(2) those showing little ability or aptitude for managing a farm without super- 
vision, a group made up of the "day-laborer" and "seasonal-employment" types 
whose change in status consisted merely of a curtailment of work; and (3) those 
disapproved, being regarded as altogether ineligible for rehabilitation. 6/ 

More than one-half of the cases (54.3 percent) were rated as capable 
of handling and using capital advances effectively. For convenience they are 
referred to as Group I in this report. More than one-third (34.8 percent) 
were regarded as possibilities for rehabilitation even though they had had 
little or no experience as farm owners or managers. These make up Group II. 
The others (10.9 percent) who were not accepted for rehabilitation under the 
new system are designated "disapproved," 

Because the classification on the basis of capability to manage capital 
advances and farm resources was at least partially subjective, attention is 
given primarily to all families included in the analysis. For comparative 
purposes, however, distinction is made between the two groups rated according to 



5/ The schedule form devised to facilitate the classification of cases as 
well as instructions for its use was arranged by Harold Hoffsommer, formerly 
Alabama State Supervisor of Rural Social Research, and Thomas C. McCormick, 
formerly of the Rural Section, Division of Social Research, Federal Emergency 
Relief Administration. The tabulation was directed by J . H. McClure, assistant 
to Mr. Hoffsommer. The schedule was similar to that used in the Arkansas sur- 
vey which is reported herein, For a further analysis of some of these data see 
Hoffsommer, Harold, The Disadvantaged Farm Family in Alabama, Rural Sociology, 
December 1937. 

6/ Each family was rated by the case worker assisted by the county committee. 
Although a copy of each schedule was sent into a central office at Montgomery 
for editing and tabulation, the county office kept the originals on file for 
ready reference. 



- 6 - 



managerial ability, in relation to those that were disapproved for rehabili- 
tation. 

Residence and Mobility 

Majority in Open Country 

By far the majority of the 30,028 families were farm residents. Ap- 
proximately five-sixths lived in the open country, 11.5 percent in villages, 
and 4.2 percent in towns or cities. A slightly larger proportion of the Negroes 
than of the whites lived in villages and towns or cities, but only about one- 
third of the total number of families covered by the study were Negro. 

That the program dealt principally with farmers is indicated by the much 
higher proportion of clients living in the open country and the much smaller 
proportion in villages and towns or cities than was true for all Alabama fami- 
lies. According to United States Census figures for 1930, 46 percent of all 
households 7/ in the State were rural farm, 23 percent rural non-farm (primar- 
ily village) and 31 percent urban (town or city of more than 2,500 persons). 
The proportions of all rural farm households in 1930 were about the same for 
whites and Negroes, Almost one-fourth of the white and over one-fifth of the 
Negro households were rural non-farm, 

It can readily be assumed that more of the open-country residents would 
be rated capable of good management without supervision, because of their closer 
association with farm operation, than of those v/ho lived in villages and towns 
or cities. This is borne out by the data which show 57 percent of those 
living in the open country, 44 percent in villages, and 37 percent in towns 
or cities classified in Group I (Table 1). On the other hand, a few more 
of the village and urban families were disapproved for rehabilitaiion , The 
proportions of the total number rated as good managers without supervision, 
as managers with close supervision, and disapproved for rehabilitation, do not 
vary widely for white and Negro clients when residence is considered. There is 
an indication, however, that the latter in villages and towns, and the former 
in towns or cities were more likely to need close supervision. 

Length of Residence in Country and City 

For heads of households or families living in the open country the 
average length of residence was almost 38 years, whereas for those in the 
village it was only 3.4 years, and for those in the city, only 1.3 years. 
Also, the heads reported 28.4 years continuous residence in their respective 
counties. The average was highest for open-country families, 29.1 years, 
compared with 27,6 for villagers and 20.4 for urban dwellers (Table 2). 



7/ "Family" and "household" are used interchangeably in this report as in- 
dicating the number of persons living together, regardless of relationship. 



- 7 - 



Table 1.- Relief households considered for rural rehabilitation, by 
residence, rating, and color, Alabama, September 1934 1/ 



Rating : Total : Residence 

and : reporting; : Open country : Villag e : Town or c ity_ 

color ; Number ; Percent ; Number ; Percent : Number : Percent ; Number ; Percent 



Total 


30,028 


100 


.0 


25,367 


100 





3,395 


100 


.0 


1,266 


100 





Group I 


16,306 


54 


3 


14,361 


56 


6 


1,482 


43 


.7 


463 


36 


6 


Group II 


10,457 


34 


8 


8.299 


32 


7 


1,518 


44 


7 


640 


50 


5 


Disapproved 


3,265 


10 


9 


2,707 


10 


7 


395 


11 


6 


163 


12 


9 


White 


20 , 177 


100 





17.714 


100 





2 , 209 


100 





794 


100 





Group I 


10,712 


53 


1 


9,359 


54 


5 


1 ,055 


47 


8 


298 


37 




Group II 


7,355 


36 


5 


6,047 


35 


2 


915 


41 


4 


393 


49 


5 


Disapproved 


2,110 


10 


4 


1 ,768 


10 


3 


239 


10 


8 


103 


13 





Negro 


9,851 


100 





8,193 


100 





1,186 


100 





472 


100 





Group I 


5,594 


56 


8 


5.002 


61 





428 


36 


1 


164 


34 


8 


Group II 


3,102 


31 


5 


2,253 


27 


5 


602 


50 


7 


247 


52 


3 


Disapproved 


1,155 


11 


7 


938 


11 


5 


156 


13 


2 


61 


12 


9 



1/ In the rating system or scheme used by the case workers, households were 
classified in Group I, those considered capable of managing capital advances, 
largely drawn from former owners and tenants; Group II. those showing ability or 
aptitude to manage with close supervision, primarily day-laborer and seasonal- 
employment types; or Disapproved, those regarded altogether ineligible for re- 
habilitation. As in other units of study here reported, farms and points of 
less than 50 persons are designated as open country, of 50-2,499 population as 
villages, of 2,500-4,999 as towns, and of 5,000 or more as cities. 

Table 2.- Average number of years heads of relief households con- 
sidered for rural rehabilitation had lived continuously in 
county of present residence, by color, residence, and 
rating, Alabama, September 1934 





: All households 




White 


Negro 


Residence 


: Total 


Years of 


: Total 


: Years of 


:Total 


:Years of 


and 


: number 


continuous 


: number 


: continuous 


number 


: continuous 


Rating 


: report- 


residence 


report- 


- : residence 


report 


- : residence 




: ing : 


in county 


ing 


: in county 


ing 


: in county 


Total 


29,804 


28.4 


20,017 


24.6 


9,787 


36.2 


Residence : 














Open country 


25,215 


29. 1 


17,075 


25.2 


8, 140 


37.9 


Village 


3,348 


27.6 


2,170 


23.7 


1,178 


34.5 


Town or city 


1, 241 


20.4 


772 


17.2 


469 


25.0 


Rating : 














Group I 


16,205 


28.2 


10,640 


24.1 


5,565 


36.1 


Group II 


10,394 


27.0 


7,310 


24.2 


3,084 


33.8 


Disapproved 


3,205 


34.1 


2,067 


28.9 


1,138 


43.5 



- 8 - 



Length of residence in the same county seems to have little or no in- 
fluence on the rating of cases with respect to management capabilities (Table 
2). The more capable had lived in the county where they were situated at the 
time of study only a year longer than the others and about 7 years less than the 
rejected. Doubtless many of those in the disapproved class were so rated be- 
cause of advanced age which, of course, can be interpreted to mean longer resi- 
dence in the same place whether it be on the farm or in village, town, or city. 

Occupational and Tenure Status 

Majority in Agriculture 

More than 97 percent of the applicants, including those among the labor- 
ers who reported work at farming, had been engaged in agricultural pursuits at 
one time or another. Of those for which the present occupation was designated, 
55 percent were engaged in farming. Roughly, three-fifths of the number who re- 
ported farming were tenant operators, 8,120 being renters and 2,200 croppers. 
There were almost 4,600 owner-operators, more than 1,400 squatters, and 400 
whose exact agricultural status was unknown. 

The common laborers m the group were about half as numerous as the 
farmers, 8,127. A few others were workers in the lumber, turpentine, and 
cotton-mill industries and in the mines and foundries. More than 3,000 were 
designated "on relief" and more than 1,000 "on rehabilitation." 

m here is evidence of numerous shifts in occupations between that which 
was followed in 1921 and the last one reported. 8/ For example, among a group 
of 3,283 who had been owners in 1921 practically one-third had changed their 
status. Only 2,111 remained owners, 491 became laborers, 360 dropped back 
into the farm-renter class, 169 into the cropper group, and a smaller num- 
ber took up different kinds of industrial work. Nevertheless, it is note- 
worthy that the farm-owner group increased by approximately 200 during the 
same period. 

The group of more than 5,700 renters in 1921 lost heavily to the labor- 
ers and croppers. Many of the 5.300 croppers shifted to laborers and the next 
largest proportion became renters. A few developed into owners and some went 
into industry. By and large, the renter classification declined by more than 
400 and the cropper increased by approximately 1,400 during the interim. 

Laborers, another relatively large group in 1921, contributed most 
heavily to the renter group, then to the croppers, next to the owners, and fi- 
nally, a few to the specified industries. This entire group increased markedly 
in size, however, during the period up to 1934, primarily from the lumber and 
turpentine industries as well as the renter and cropper farm groups. 



8/ The last-listed occupation reported is not always the same as that for 
1934, because of the exclusion of some cases which were designated "on relief" 
or otherwise indefinite in the latter instance. 



- 9 - 



Apparently, then, in this large representation of rural relief clients 
scattered well over the State, with the majority in agriculture, farm ownership 
held its own from 1921 to 1934. While many former owners lost that status, 
others acquired it so that the total increased slightly. The same applies to 
the renter group. The number of croppers became noticeably smaller, with a 
majority of those who changed going into labor. Likewise, the industries lost 
heavily to the common-labor group. 

Social _ Characteristics 

Predominance of Male Heads of Households 

Almost 90 percent of the total number of household or family heads were 
male (Table 3). The figure is higher for whites than for Negroes. In other 
words, relatively fewer of the former homes were broken by the absence of a male 
head. It is practically the same for open-country and village residents 
and slightly lower in both of these instances than for those living in the 
city. 

Relatively more of the families adjudged capable of managing capital 
advances without supervision had male heads, 95 percent compared with 83 
percent of those capable with supervision, and 81 percent of those disapproved 
for rehabilitation, Undoubtedly, the presence or absence of a. male head 
was an influential factor when the family was rated with respect to managerial 
ability. 



Table 3.- Percentages of male heads of relief households 
considered for rural rehabilitation, by color, residence, 
and rating, Alabama, September 1934 





All households 


White 


Negro 


Residence : 


Total 


Percent- 


Total 


: Percent- 


Total 


Percent- 


and : 


number 


ages with 


number 


ages with 


number 


ages with 


rating ; 


reporting 


male heads 


reporting:male heads 


reporting 


male heads 


Total 


30,028 


89.1 


20,177 


91.9 


9,851 


83.4 


Residence : 














Open country 


25 , 367 


89.2 


17,174 


91.5 


8, 193 


84.0 


Village 


3,395 


89.5 


2,209 


92.2 


1.186 


85.0 


Town or city 


1,266 


91.4 


794 


96.1 


472 


83.6 


Rating: 














Group I 


16,306 


94.7 


10,712 


96.5 


5,594 


91.4 


Group II 


10,457 


83.0 


7,355 


86.6 


3, 102 


74.5 


Disapproved 


3,265 


81.1 


2,110 


88.0 


1,155 


68.5 



- 10 - 



Age of Heads of Households 

Heads of the households were middle aged, averaging 42.5 years (Table 4) . 
The whites were about 6 years younger than the Negroes, on an average. Dif- 
ference in age is most striking among the open-country dwellers, amounting to 
6.9 years, whereas it is only 3.5 and 2.9 years for village and town or city 
residents . 

It is noteworthy that the largest proportions .of all heads fall in the 
age groups comprising 35-44 and 45-54 years, about one-fifth of the total 
in each instance. This applies to Negroes as well as whites, except in the 
village where the more advanced ages predominate. There is a fair proportion 
of the total in the youth and old-age groups, 10.2 percent being 24 years or 
less and 9.1 percent, 65 years or more. These proportions vary slightly 
by residence, with relatively fewer aged men among the Negro cases in town or 
city than in village and open country. 

Table 4.- Average age and percentages of heads of households 
in different age groupings, among relief clients con- 
sidered for rural rehabilitation, by residence 
and color, Alabama, September 1934 





•.Total 


Average 








Percentages of heads in 




Residence 


: number 


age of 










different age i 


groups 






and 


: report- 


head 


[in 


























65 and 


color 


ing 


years ) 


15- 


-24 


25- 


-29 


.30- 


-34 


35- 


-44 


:45- 


-54 


55- 


-64 


over 


Total 


30,028 


42 


5 


10 


2 


12 


7 


13 


.5 


21 


2 


20 


.6 


12 


7 


9.1 


White 


20,177 


40 


5 


10 


.9 


13 


7 


14 


9 


23 


3 


19 


.7 


11 


.3 


6.2 


Negro 


9,851 


46 


8 


8 


.6 


10 


.5 


10 


.7 


16 


6 


22 


.6 


15 


8 


15.2 


Open country 


25 . 367 


42 


4 


10 


3 


12 


9 


13 


.8 


21 


2 


20 


.3 


12 


.3 


9.2 


White 


17 , 174 


40 


3 


11 


2 


14 





15 


.1 


23 


3 


19 


.2 


10 


.9 


6.2 


Negro 


8,193 


47 


2 


8 


6 


10 


5 


10 


9 


16. 


5 


22 


.4 


15 


3 


15.8 


Village 


3,395 


43 


7 


9 





10 


8 


12 


5 


20. 


9 


21 


.8 


15 


3 


9.7 


White 


2,209 


42 


5 


9 


2 


11 


3 


13 


7 


23. 


4 


21 


5 


13 


6 


7.3 


Negro 


1,186 


46 





8 


5 


9 


7 


10 


1 


16. 


3 


22 


.9 


18 


5 


14.0 


Town or city 


1 ,266 


41 


6 


10 


3 


13 


2 


11 





22. 


1 


24 


8 


13 


6 


5.0 


White 


794 


40 


4 


10 


7 


14 





12 


7 


23. 


2 


24 





11. 


7 


3.7 


Negro 


472 


43 


3 


9 


7 


12 


1 


8 


5 


20. 


6 


25 


6 


16. 


4 


7.1 



Size of Household 

The rehabilitation households or families averaged 5.1 persons each, 
practically the same for white and Negro without regard to residence (Table 5). 



- 11 - 



Table 


5,- Average 


size of 


household, 


by color, 


residence 






and rating, 


relief cases considered for 


rural 






rehabilitation, 


Alabama, September 1934 






All households 


: White : 


Negro 


Residence 


: Total 


Average 


Total 


: Average : 


Total : 


Average 


and 


niimhp V 






• qi 7Q in' 

. O -L £-i \Z> 111 • 


tin nil p t * 




rating 


; reporting 


persons 


: reporting 


; persons : 


reporting : 


persons 


Total 


30,028 


5.1 


20,177 


5.1 


9,851 


5,0 


Residence : 














Open country 


25.365 


5.1 


17.174 


5.1 


8,191 


5.1 


Village 


3,395 


4.9 


2,209 


5.0 


1,186 


4.7 


Town or city 


1,268 


5.0 


794 


5.1 


474 


4.9 


Rating: 














Group I 


16,306 


5.5 


10,712 


5.2 


5,594 


5.1 


Group II 


10,457 


4.7 


7,355 


4.8 


3,102 


4.5 


Disapproved 


3,265 


3.9 


2,110 


4.2 


1,155 


3.3 



However, in village and city the Negro clients had slightly smaller families 
than did the whites. Households of the study were slightly larger than for the 
State as a whole, as all Alabama farm households averaged 4,9 persons each ac- 
cording to the United States Census for 1930. 



Households regarded as capable of managing advances effectively were 
larger than the others; they had 5.5 persons each, compared with 4.7 for the 
less capable and 3.9 for the disapproved (Table 5). Size of family may have 
influenced the rating of clients from the standpoint of the needs as well as of 
possible contributions by additional older children to farming. The number of 
persons per family, however, appears to have been less important among whites 
than among Negroes in the rating. 

Educational Attainments 

One-sixth of the heads classified as farmers had completed or gone 
farther than the seventh grade. One-eighth had finished the eighth grade; 
6.0 percent had had one year of high school; and 1.1 percent had completed all 
of high school. Only 0.3 percent had had one year, and 0.1 percent, four years, 
of college (Table 6) . The proportion completing the eighth grade was signifi- 
cantly higher for whites than for Negroes. 

Formal education played some part in the qualification for rehabilita- 
tion. At any rate, a higher proportion of the families regarded as capable of 
managing capital advances had heads who had gone through the elementary 
grades, completed a part or all of high school, or entered college, than was 
characteristic of those in Group II. 



- 12 - 



Table 6.- Formal schooling of heads of households among rural relief 
cases considered for rural rehabilitation, by color and rating, 

Alabama, September 1934 



Per centages of heads completing - 



Color 


: Total : : 




:1st year: 




: 1st : 


and 


: number : 7th 


8th 


: high : 


High 


: year -.College 


rating 


: reporting; grade 


grade 


: school : 


school 


: college : 



j. oxax 


C.ZJ ,111 


ID 


■z 
o 


to o 

JL(C . <c 


D . 




x . 


X 


n x 
U . o 




Group I 


16,206 


13 


3 


13.2 


6. 


4 


1 


2 


.3 




Group II 


10,370 


18 


8 


10.5 


5 







8 


.2 


.1 


Disapproved 


3,195 


23 


6 


12.7 


6 


8 


1 


.5 


.3 


.1 


White 


20,014 


11 


3 


16.1 


7 


9 


1 


.3 


.3 


.1 


Group I 


10,657 


8 


.8 


17.7 


8 


.6 


1 


.5 


.4 


.1 


Group II 


7,288 


14 


3 


13.2 


6 


3 




.9 


.2 


— 


Disapproved 


2,069 


14 





18.2 


9 


6 


1 


9 


.4 


.2 


Negro 


9,757 


26 


4 


4.2 


2 







5 


.2 




Group I 


5,549 


21 


8 


4.4 


2 


1 




5 


1.2 




Group II 


3,082 


29 


2 


4.2 


2 







.5 


.2 




Disapproved 


1,126 


41 


1 


2.8 


6 


7 




6 


.1 





Table 7.- Children 6 to 20 years of age, inclusive, attending 
school, by color, residence, and schooling of head of 
household, rural relief cases considered for 
rehabilitation, Alabama, September, 1934 



All children 


White 


Negro 


: Percentages 
Total :attending 
Number: school 


: Percentages 
Total : attending 
Number: school 


Total 
Number 


Percentages 
attending 
school 



Total 


56,469 


59 


5 


38,524 


60 


.8 


17,945 


56 


.7 


Residence : 




















Open country 


47 , 698 


58 


5 


32,760 


49 


7 


14,938 


55 


.7 


Village 


6,360 


67 


3 


4,317 


69 


8 


2,043 


61 


.9 


Town or city 


2,411 


59 


7 


1,447 


58 


7 


964 


61 


.2 


Schooling of head 




















(grades completed 


: 





















8,686 


50 


6 


4,492 


51 


7 


4,194 


49 


4 


1-4 


24,065 


55 


6 


14,359 


56 


3 


9,706 


57 


1 


5-7 


17,542 


63 


8 


14,356 


64 


2 


3,186 


61 


9 


8 


3,406 


69 


8 


2,928 


69 


8 


478 


69 


7 


9-11 


2,314 


72 


4 


2,001 


73 


5 


313 


65 


5 


12 


320 


73 


1 


284 


73 


2 


36 


72 


2 


13 - 15 


103 


76 


7 


74 


82 


4 


29 


62. 


1 


16 


33 


81 


8 


30 


83 


3 


3 


66 


6 



- 13 - 



This does not apply to the disapproved group, since some in this classi- 
fication had sufficient resources to make them ineligible for the program, and 
along with these resources, relatively more formal schooling, compared with the 
others (Table 6) . On the other hand, proportionately fewer heads in Group I 
had stopped with the seventh grade. Thus, the suggestion is that of those who 
finished the seventh more had gone on for further schooling than among those in 
Group II. 

Almost three in five of the total number of children 6 to 20 years of age 
were reported as attending school (Table 7) . The proportion doing so was higher 
for village than for either open-country or city families. White children 
were a little more likely to be in school than Negroes, and those in the village 
more so than those in open country, town, or city. 

Although not necessarily a counterpart of relief experience, it is note- 
worthy that school attendance of the children 6 to 20 years of age tends to in- 
crease with advanced formal schooling of the head of the household (Table 7) . 
With 59,5 percent of all children in school, the proportion increases steadily 
from 50.6 percent for heads with no schooling to 81.8 percent for those who 
finished college. To some extent this would be expected, but it may be due in 
part to the fact that the better educated heads were younger, had had their 
schooling more recently, and were influenced by a greater general emphasis on 
school attendance. The increase is more pronounced and regular among white than 
colored clients. 

Economic Aspects 

Possession of Livestock 

It would be revealing to know the amount of equipment and resources 
that the rural rehabilitation families had at their disposal. Enumeration of 
items indicating this was limited to number of the principal kinds of livestock 
for the clients that were classified "farm." Among these farmers, livestock for 
use was limited to only 1 horse or mule for every five families, 1 ox for every 
ten, 2 cows for every three, and 12 chickens for each family. The situation was 
practically the same for white as for all families (Table 8) . The Negroes had 
oxen available twice as frequently as did whites but had milk cows and poultry 
less frequently. 

Although these figures may be only partially indicative of the pre- 
vailing situation respecting livestock resources, they are somewhat more sig- 
nificant of the client's economic status when compared with corresponding aver- 
ages for the State as of 1929. At that time, according to the United States 
Census for 1930, there were on an average 1.5 horses and mules, 3.1 cattle, 
and 21 chickens per farm in Alabama. 

It is significant that the clients who were rated capable had a little 
more livestock of the different kinds enumerated in comparison with those 
lacking ability to manage a farm, but about the same compared with the dis- 
approved cases (Table 8) . One would expect this in the first instance but 



- 14 - 



Table 8.- Average number of principal kinds of livestock 
available for use, 1/ among farm relief households con- 
sidered for rural rehabilitation, by color and rat- 
ing, Alabama, September 1934 









number available per 


nousenoici 


cx n H 


















: Oxen . 


: Milk cows 




Total 


29,329 


0.2 


. X 


. 1 


12.0 


uroup ± 


ID , z)0O 


. O 


o 

. c 


o 
. o 


10 . 






o 
. c 


. 1 


A 

. 4 


Q R 
zp . o 


L/XocipjUI UVtJU. 


9 


-z. 
• <•> 


.1 


.7 


1 O 7 
-L/C • %J 


White 


1 Q CI Q 


. 2 


1 1 


<7 
. 1 


lo . o 


Group I 


10,387 




.2 


.8 




Group II 


7,325 


.1 


n o / 


. 


10.9 


Disapproved 


1,906 


4 

* rr 


.1 


.9 


i ^ p. 


Negro 


9,711 


.2 


.2 


.6 


9.3 


Group I 


5,571 


.2 


.3 


.7 


11.0 


Group II 


3,047 


.1 


.1 


.1 


; 6.7 


Disapproved 


1,093 


.2 


.1 


.4 


7.0 


1/ Not necessarily owned. 










2/ Less than 0. 


05, 










probably not in 


the second; presumably other factors 


than livestock were the 


basis of disapproval, except as 


sases were 


rej ected 


because of 


their having 


sufficient resources to place them 


above the 


level of eligibility 


for rehabili- 



tation. 

Indebtedness of Clients 

The extent and amount of indebtedness also gives an indication of the 
economic and social status of families under consideration for rehabilitation, 
Almost two-thirds of the total reported some indebtedness (Table 9) . The pro- 
portion was a little lower for the open-country than for the village or town and 
city dwellers. However, the average amount per family having indebtedness was 
higher among the open-country than among the other two groups - $100 compared 
with $87 and $62 per family. Less than 60 percent of the total indebtedness was 
secured, with the proportion highest among open-country residents. This is due 
in part to the more prevalent ownership of livestock, equipment, and perhaps 
growing crops as security on the farm. 

Contrary to what might be expected on first thought, the households 
rated most capable to manage capital advances had by far the higher average 
indebtedness; compared with those regarded less capable, the amount was more 
than double, or $76 compared with $37 (Table 10) . Undoubtedly this is because 



- 15 - 



Table 9.- Percentages of households reporting indebtedness, average 
amount of indebtedness per case reporting, and percentage of in- 
debtedness secured, relief households considered for rural re- 
habilitation, by color and residence, Alabama, September 1934 









Average 


: Percentage 




: Total 


: Percentages 


indebtedness 


: of 


Residence 


: number 


: reporting 


per case 


: indebtedness 




; reporting 


; indebtedness 


reporting 


; secured 


Total 


30,008 


63.8 


$97 


56.9 


Open country 


25,358 


63.1 


100 


57.8 


Village 


3,390 


67.9 


87 


53.0 


Town or city 


1 , 260 


66.5 


62 


44.4 


White 


20,164 


70.3 


108 


54.9 


Open country 


17,170 


70.0 


111 


55.5 


Village 


2,204 


72.6 


103 


53.1 


Town or city 


790 


70.6 


67 


39.8 


Negro 


9,844 


50.4 


65 


66.6 


Open country 


8,188 


48.5 


68 


69.1 


Village 


1,186 


59.1 


51 


52.7 


Town or city 


470 


60.5 


52 


54.8 



Table 10.- Average amount and percentage of indebtedness secured 
among farm relief households considered for rural rehabilitation, 
by color and rating, Alabama, September 1934 

Color and : Total number : Average amount : Percentage of 

rating : reporting ;of indebtedness indebtedness secured 



Total ' 


29,590 


$62.55 


57.8 


Group I 


16,225 


75.90 


61.6 


Group II 


10,361 


36.90 


39.2 


Disapproved 


3,004 


78.36 


67.5 


White 


19,876 


77.10 


55.8 


Group I 


10,658 


92.79 


59.2 


Group II 


7,317 


45.54 


38.2 


Disapproved 


1,901 


109.97 


67.1 


Negro 


9,714 


32.80 


67.5 


Group I 


5,567 


43.65 


71.5 


Group II 


3,044 


16.26 


46.3 


Disapproved 


1,103 


23.89 


70.1 



- 16 - 



they had more worldly goods on which loans could be secured. Likewise, the 
families in Group I were more likely to have the indebtedness secured. 

A question arises as to whether many of the cases in Group II were placed 
in this category because of having less indebtedness. Probably the answer is 
found in the fact that they were primarily laborers and that, as such, they had 
less pressing need for large indebtedness and would obviously have less to offer 
as security. 

The disapproved cases had larger indebtedness, with proportionately 
more of it secured than either Group I (insignificant here, except among Ne- 
groes) or Group II (Table 10). This might suggest that cases were rejected 
because of too heavy or too frequent indebtedness. Undoubtedly, heavier in- 
debtedness is associated with more livestock and perhaps other resources owned 
by disapproved clients, which in turn might cause them to be above the re- 
habilitation level. 

Rsasons Given for Being on Relief 

The real reason why specific families get on the relief rolls is dif- 
ficult to ascertain. This difficulty is due to the many factors functioning 
in a given circumstance and probably to emotional bias on the part of the client 
when faced with making satisfactory explanation. It is perhaps no more readily 
discernible by case workers whose judgments may be at least partially subjective 
in many instances. Regardless of their shortcomings, however, reasons given as 
to why these Alabama families have had to resort to relief are of interest. 

Outstanding among the reasons given for need of aid is inability to 
find work, reported by 3 in 10 of the total number of cases (Table 11). This 
applies usually to the head of the household or family, but in a few instances 
includes also some other unemployed member. The proportion of the total number 
who were unable to find work is noticeably lower among open-country residents 
than among village and city dwellers. It is higher among whites than among Ne- 
groes, particularly in the open-country group. 

Unusual or emergency expenses rank second among the total reasons. Next 
in importance are handicaps to farming, including answers of farm too small, on 
poor land, or under poor management. More than 1 in 10 of the heads were phys- 
ically unable to work, less than 1 in 20 of the households consisted of women 
with dependents, and even fewer represented displacements by the program of the 
Agricultural Adjustment Administration. 

Summary of Findings 

In recapitulation, almost five-sixths of Alabama's 30,028 rural relief 
cases resided in the open country. Farm residence is associated with ability 
to manage capital advances; however, length of such residence, in comparison with 
average years lived in village or city, seems to have had little bearing on eli- 
gibility for the rehabilitation program. 



- 17 - 



Table 11.- Percentages of clients considered for rural rehabilita- 
tion giving specified reasons for being on relief, by 
residence and color, Alabama, September 1934 









Percentages giving 


specified 


reasons 








Un- 


Head 




Hand- 


Disnl a ced 


■ Unusuri 1 

> VIA VlhJ WWi 




Residence 


Total 


able 


physi- 


Widow 


icaps 


from agri- 


: expense 




and 


number 


to 


cally 


with 


to 


cultural 


:or loss 


Other 


color 


report- 


find 


U.11CX VJ -L t? 


u v Menu— 


J. CL 1 111 


employment 


:of prop- 






i n c 


wo rk 


to work 


ents 


ing 


bv AAA 


er! v 






Total 


27,737 


29.2 


11.2 


4.2 


19.3 


>. 

3.9 


20.0 


12.2 


White 


18,276 


32.3 




4 1 


17 1 


4.6 ) 


18.3 


12.7 




9 461 


27> 2 


11.6 


4.5 


23.9 


V 2 6 / 
% 


23 2 


11 

X X . \J 


Open country- 


23,161 


25.5 


11.4 


4.4 


20.2 


4.2 


22.1 


12.2 


White 


15,328 


29.8 


11.2 


4.2 


17.5 


4.9 


19.5 


12.9 


Negro 


7,833 


17.8 


11.9 


4.6 


25.4 


2.7 


26.5 


11.1 


Village 


3,339 


42.2 


10.5 


3.4 


18.4 


2.4 


11.3 


11.8 


White 


2,170 


41.2 


10.2 


3.6 


18.0 


2.4 


12.1 


12.5 


Negro 


1,169 


43.9 


11.1 


3.1 


19.4 


2.1 


10.2 


10.2 


Town or city 


1,237 


58.0 


8.0 


2.6 


7.2 


3.4 


9.6 


11.2 


White 


778 


56.2 


7.3 


1.1 


6.9 


5.2 


11.8 


11.5 


Negro 


459 


60.8 


9.0 


4.8 


7.6 


.8 


6.4 


10.6 



Practically all of the clients had been engaged at some time in agri- 
cultural pursuits, and even one-half the number who reported their present or 
last occupations named farming. Three in five of these farmers were tenants. 
There were almost one-half as many common laborers as farmers, yet many of them 
had had some connection with agriculture. More than 3,000 clients designated 
their occupations "on relief" and 1,000 "on rehabilitation" and again many of 
these had worked at farming. Among the farmers, from 1921 to the year of the 
last occupation reported, the renters lost heavily in numbers to the cropper 
and laborer groups. Croppers lost even more significantly, particularly to the 
laborers . 

The size of households averaged 5.1 persons with practically no variation 
by place of residence. But those rated as capable of management were consider- 
ably larger than the ones lacking in aptitude to manage farms, while those dis- 
approved for rehabilitation were smallest. 

One-eighth of the heads of households had completed the eight grades but 
only 1 percent had gone through high school. The amount of formal schooling 
appears to have had some bearing on the ratings with respect to capability of 
management, but little on the matter of approval or disapproval for rehabili- 
tation. 



- 18 - 



The households or families were poorly equipped with resources for farm- 
ing, as indicated by a general lack of available livestock and by the extent of 
indebtedness. Average indebtedness, noticeably low for all of them, was twice 
as high among those regarded capable of effective management as among those 
needing close supervision in the rehabilitation venture, although it was prac- 
tically the same for the capable as for the disapproved group. 

More than for any other single reason families were on relief because of 
the inability of the head to find work. This ratio is much higher in the 
villages and cities than in the open country. Handicaps to farming and unusual 
or emergency expense were important reasons given more frequently in open 
country than in village or city and more common among Negroes than whites. 

Thus, according to the analysis of rural relief clients in Alabama, 
it seems that those best fitted for the rehabilitation program should have al- 
ready had farm experience, should have a family larger than average, have ac- 
quired at least an elementary education, and possess some livestock and equip- 
ment. The advantage of practically all of these is reflected in, or associated 
with, ability to manage farm-business operations without too much supervision. 



- 19 - 



Chapter III 

ARKANSAS RURAL RELIEF AND REHABILITATION LOAN 



The Arkansas study or survey dealt with practically all applicants 
for rural-rehabilitation loans as of June 1935. 9/ They were widely scat- 
tered over the State, with noticeably more in the north central part than 
elsewhere. The group, all told, included more than 20,000, almost 3,000 
of whom were disapproved or rejected, Members in the households of those on 
rehabilitation at the time indicated above constituted 6.7 percent of the total 
rural population of the State as of 1930. 

Information was obtained by county case workers or other staff mem- 
bers who questioned the applicant, usually at the time of his visit to re- 
quest a loan. On the basis of farming experience, ability to secure loans 
from other sources, and local reputation of the family, all cases were classified 
by the county rehabilitation committees into four groups, as follows: (1) the 
best risks among those capable of managing capital goods or having a good 
reputation, considerable farming experience, some livestock and equipment, and 
sufficient available labor in the household; (2) poorer risks among those 
regarded capable of managing capital goods or those less dependable and having 
not so much farming experience, livestock, and equipment as the "best risks"; 
(3) those lacking the aptitude or ability to manage a farm, that is, having 
little or no experience in either agriculture or management; and (4) disapproved 
including those who could obtain credit from private sources, as well as those 
relatively unreliable and non-cooperative or unable and disinclined to work. 

Of the total number of applicants for the State, 17 percent were at 
the top as best risks or prospects and are referred to as Group I in this 
report. Fifty-six percent who were poorer risks, but good prospects because of 
experience in farming on a smaller scale, constitute Group II. Fourteen per- 
cent lacking aptitude to manage a farm, but having fair possibilities for re- 
habilitation, make up Group III. Ineligible because of their ability to get 
other credit or their "reputation in the neighborhood," the remaining 13 per- 
cent were disapproved. The ones in this group who could obtain credit from 
private agencies, including the making of contracts with their landlords, 
constituted only 4 percent of all the applicants and "were so heterogeneous in 
character" that they are excluded from the final analysis, leaving the dis- 
approved class to embody only those who were rejected because of their reputa- 
tions or inability to work. Schedules, or rating sheets, were used by the 



9/ This study is reported in detail by W. T. Wilson and W. H. Metzler in 
"Characteristics of Arkansas Rehabilitation Clients," Bulletin 348, University 
of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, June 1937. It was conducted by the 
State director of rural rehabilitations on funds provided by the Emergency 
Relief and the Works Progress Administrations. This interpretation is mainly 
a summary of the more detailed bulletin, from the standpoint of factors or 
aspects having most significance to other studies of the report. 



- 20 - 



county committee as a means of putting applicants in their proper places in the 
rehabilitation program. 



Residence and Mobility 
Majority on Farms 

The applicants were predominantly farmers. Among' the approved groups, 
nearly 95 percent lived in the open country, and they constituted almost 98 
percent of the best prospects for rehabilitation. Noticeably more of the dis- 
approved than of the approved lived in villages, towns, or cities. Also, among 
the approved groups, the percentages of those who resided in non-farm locations 
increased as rating decreased. Proportionately fewer of the Negro applicants 
were on farms and more in village and urban locations, as compared with the 
white (Table 12) . 



Table 12.- Percentage distribution of applicants for rural 
rehabilitation, by residence, color, and rating, Arkansas, 

1935 



Color and : Total number: Percentages residing in - 



rating : reporting :0pen country: Village : Town : City 



Color: 

White 18,355 94.3 3.6 0.8 0.8 

Negro 1,767 90.3 5.9 2.5 1.3 

Rating: 

Approved 18,221 94.4 3.7 1.0 .9 

Group I 3,622 97.7 2.0 - .3 

Group II 11,767 94.5 3.7 1.0 .8 

Group III 2,832 89.8 6.2 2.2 1.8 

Disapproved 1,901 75.9 14.7 6.3 3.1 



Bulletin 348, University of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, Table 9, 
p. 14. 



It is stated by those in charge of the survey that Negroes were less 
inclined than whites to apply for relief and rehabilitation. Furthermore, 
they were not accepted in as high a proportion, as fewer were in the proper 
economic status (owner or tenant) and their needs were often met by plantation 
landlords. Negroes comprised less than 8 percent of the rehabilitation load 
compared with 26.5 percent of the total rural population in Arkansas. Those 
accepted for rehabilitation were above "the average of their race, judged from 
the standpoint of tenancy," that is, 22.5 percent were owners, whereas 16 per- 
cent was the average for the entire State. 



- 21 - 



Mobility of Applicants 

The extent to which applicants had moved from farm to village, town, 
or city as well as in the reverse direction was not ascertained. On a broader 
basis, perhaps, there were more geographic moves within the State than into 
or out of it. 10/ On a county basis the intra-state moves ranged from as high 
as 1 per family to as low as 1 to every 4 families, and were more common in 
the southern and eastern portions where people were less inclined to leave the 
State . 

For the inter-state moves from 1915 to 1934 a tabulation was made by 
5-year periods. During that time the total number of shifts out of the State 
was 870, with about three-fifths of these occurring in the period 1925-29. 
While Missouri and Oklahoma received the larger proportion of them, California, 
Texas, and Louisiana were also recipients. By far the majority of nearly 
1,650 moves into the State took place during the period 1930-34; these in- 
cluded mostly "people who were returning to Arkansas." 

Occupational and Tenure Status 

Predominance of Renters 

According to their last reported occupational and tenure status, nearly 
one-fifth of the applicants were farmers who owned a part or all of the land 
they operated (Table 13) . More than one-third were farm tenants who paid cash 
or share rent, about one-sixth were croppers, and less than 5 percent were farm 
laborers; thus almost three-fourths of the total were farmers. The others had 



Table 13..- Last reported tenure status for rural 
rehabilitation applicants, by rating for suit- 
ability or eligibility, Arkansas, 1935 



Rating 


: Total 


Percentages reporting last 


tenure status as - 


Owner 


: Tenant 


Cropper 


Farm 
. laborer 


Non-farm 


Total 


100.0 


18.9 


34.5 


16.1 


4.7 


25.8 


Approved: 














Group I 


100.0 


46.7 


45.1 


4.0 


.8 


3.4 


Group II 


100.0 


20.8 


44.4 


15.8 


4.4 


14.6 


Group III 


100.0 


13.1 


36.4 


13.7 


6.0 


30.8 


Disapproved 


100.0 


16.6 


26.6 


11.0 


4.0 


41.8 



Bulletin 348, University of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, Table 
16, p. 21. 



10/ Ibid., pp. 21-23. 



- 22 - 



recently been engaged in non-agricultural enterprises. Owners and renters 
were most frequently found among the approved clients, 92 percent of the best 
prospects being of these two tenure classes. Among those capable of managing 
capital goods, in Group II, there were proportionately as many tenants as 
in Group I but more croppers, farm laborers, and non- farmers, and fewer owners, 
Group III was comprised of fewer farm owners and tenants, but many more non- 
farmers, than the other two groups, as would be expected. The percentages 
of all applicants -in occupations other than farming increased noticeably with 
lowered eligibility for rehabilitation loans, because of emphasis placed on 
farm experience and equipment when the selections were made. 

A sample tabulation for more than 6,000 of the cases studied showed 
almost 11,000 shifts in occupational and tenure status during the 20-year 
period ending in 1934. There were five moves up the agricultural ladder to 
every four down, with a tendency to stop at the tenancy rung on the way up; 
croppers advanced noticeably to the tenant status, more so than laborers to 
the cropper or tenant levels; and between 1930 and 1934 inclusive, the most 
frequent downward shift was to the labor classification. 11/ 

When the 3,500 clients in the non-agricultural classification from 
many different occupations were taken into consideration, most of them had 
been reared on farms but moved to urban centers in pursuit of work. In the 
main, they were common laborers, who, when thrown out of jobs, returned to 
the country to weather the depression. The drought, however, caused this type 
of self-aid to fail, and forced people to resort to relief or rehabilitation. 
Whether or not urban experiences interfered with their potentialities of be- 
coming successful farmers is debatable. At any rate, rehabilitation committees 
tried to set them up on farms whenever it was thought that they might follow 
this occupation satisfactorily. 

Slightly less than one-fifth of the approved rehabilitation clients 
were classified as part-time farmers, the highest proportion of these so classi- 
fied being in Group II (Table 14) . Noticeably fewer of the disapproved 
were part-time operators while relatively more were in the non-farm classifi- 
cation. 

Among the accepted applicants the average income from outside sources in 
1932 for those who were on a part-time farming basis was $83 per family. Dis-. 
approved applicants received a much smaller income from non-farm work than did 
the others. Among the approved cases, the best prospects obtained most and the 
fair, least. Negroes averaged only $57 from part-time farming, as compared with 
$84 for white persons. 

A sample study of approximately one-fourth of the part-time farmers 



11/ See Characteristics of Arkansas Rural Rehabilitation Clients, referred to 
in footnote 9, for further information pertaining to this aspect. The agri- 
cultural ladder here used means the ascent in tenure status from farm laborer 
to cropper, tenant, and owner. 



- 23 - 



Table 14.- Number and percentage of all rural rehabilitation 
applicants who were part-time farmers and non-farmers, 
and average income from non-farm sources, by 
color and rating, Arkansas, 1932 







Part-time farmers 




Non-farmers 




Color and 


Number 


: Percentage : 


Average 


Number 


: Percentage : 


Average 


rating 


of 


: of all : 


non-farm 


of 


: of all : 


non-farm 




cases 


applicants : 


income 


cases 


: applicants : 


income 


Color: 














White 


3,174 


18.8 


$84 


3,752 


22.3 


$205 


Negro 


215 


15.6 


57 


229 


16.6 


102 


Rating: 














Approved 


3,839 


18.6 


83 


3,981 


21.8 


199 


Group I 


648 


17.9 


91 


420 


11.6 


250 


Group II 


3,318 


19.7 


83 


2,553 


21.7 


201 


Group III 


423 


14.9 


68 


1,008 


35.5 


174 


Disapproved 


223 


11.7 


64 


785 


39.4 


204 



Bulletin 348, University of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, Table 29, 
p. 30. 



revealed that timber work was the most common type of employment, about 22 
percent giving this as an occupation. Odd jobs came second and farm labor 
third. Other part-time occupations, engaged in by fewer clients, included 
rice harvesting, trucking and hauling, mill work, road construction, and 
carpentering. 

Social Characteristics 
Sex of Applicants 

Practically all household heads applying for assistance were male - 98 
percent for the white, and 96 percent for the Negro, cases. According to the 
relief rolls for Arkansas in October 1933, about 20 percent of all cases had 
a woman designated as head of the household. Thus rehabilitation cases repre- 
sent fewer broken homes, compared with general relief cases, and indicate that 
women heads of rural households were not especially inclined to apply for 
loans . 

Curiously enough, a higher proportion of the Negro women applicants 
were approved for rehabilitation; one-third of them were accepted, as com- 
pared with less than one-fourth for the whites. Whereas women applicants among 
the whites had had about the same amount of farming experience as the men, 
almost 12 years, Negro women exceeded in this respect, having had more than 
18 years compared with less than 15 for the men. 



- 24 - 



Age of Household Heads 

Because the applicants, to a large extent, were representative of 
those who had not succeeded in gaining a foothold economically, they made 
up a group somewhat younger than the average. Their age of 40 years was 
6 years less than that for rural relief clients in the United States and 9 
years less than that for heads of rural non-relief households, both of which 
were ascertained in a special study of Nation-wide scope in 1933. 12 / 

Contrary to what might be expected, Negro applicants were older by 
4 years than the whites, partly, perhaps, because the former had been longer 
in accumulating the equipment regarded necessary for eligibility (Table 15). 
It is significant also that the Negroes had had more farm experience, or 15 
years compared with 12 among those in the approved group, and 11.5 years com- 
pared with 10 among those disapproved. For all applicants, those disapproved 
for rehabilitation were about 2 years older than the approved, Among the latter, 
those in Group I were 1 year older than those in Group II, and 3 years older 
than those in Group III. 

Size of Families 

The average size of household or family for all cases, 5.4 persons, 
noticeably exceeded that for Arkansas rural people generally. 15 / The same 
figure held for whites but was a little higher for Negroes (Table 16). Among 
the factors contributing to this larger size are: the requirement that clients 
have at least one child to be accepted for rehabilitation; the fact that an 
adequate supply of labor within the family was considered desirable for ad- 
mission to the program; and that doubling-up of households was more common in 
1934 than in 1930. The approved applicants had more persons per family than 
the others - 5.5 compared with 4.8. Moreover, the best prospects among the 
approved had larger families than the disapproved. 

The number regarded as able to do farm work accounts for approximately 
one-half of the persons per household. Among the approved, the average dropped 
with each lower rating, and continued to decline to the disapproved class. 
Thus, the rehabilitation household, although it possessed a large supply of 
labor, was more likely than the average rural one to have dependents. The num- 
ber of persons unable to do farm work was 2.9 for the applicants and 2.6 for the 
general farm population of the State. Dependents were largely children, as 
evidenced by the fact that more than one-half of the members of rehabilitation 
households were under 16 years of age. 



12/ McCormick, T. C, Rural Households, Relief and Non-Relief, Research Mono- 
graph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935, 
15 / According to the U. s. Census of 1930, the average size of a rural Arkansas 
household in 1930 was 4.3 persons; that of rural farm, households was somewhat 
larger, 4.5 persons. White farm households in the State averaged 4.7 persons 
compared to 4.1 persons for Negroes. Rural non-farm households averaged 4.0 
and 3.4 individuals for whites and Negroes respectively. 



- 25 - 



Table 15.- Age distribution of applicants for loans, 
rural-rehabilitation clients, by color, sex, and 
rating, Arkansas, 1935 



: Total : Ave rage: P ercentages in different a ge groups 

Item : number :age (in:Under: : : : :65 and 



:reporting: years): 25 :25-34 :35-44 :45-54 :55-64 : over 



Color and sex 




























of head: 




























White 


16,856 


39 


3 


8 


4 


32 


6 


27 


3 


20 


7 


8.9 


2.1 


Male 


16,541 


39 


2 


8 


5 


33 


1 


26 


9 


20 


5 


8.8 


2.2 


Female 


315 


44 


7 


1 


6 


9 


5 


43 


2 


29 


5 


14.3 


1.9 


Negro 


1,382 


43 


1 


4 


7 


22 


4 


31 


6 


21 


8 


13.9 


5.6 


Male 


1,326 


43 





4 


8 


23 


2 


31 





21 


6 


13.7 


5.7 


Female 


56 


46 


2 


1 


8 


5 


4 


44 


6 


25 





19.6 


3.6 


Rating : 




























Approved 


18,238 


39 


6 


8 


1 


31 


9 


27 


6 


20 


7 


9.3 


2.4 


Group I 


3,620 


40 


8 


5 


4 


28 


2 


30 


8 


23 


3 


9.8 


2.5 


Group II 


11,787 


39 


7 


7 


8 


32 


1 


27 


3 


20 


7 


9.5 


2.6 


Group III 


2,831 


37 


6 


13 





35 


7 


24 


3 


17 


5 


7.7 


1.8 


Disapproved 


1,905 


42 


7 


8 





27 


3 


23 


3 


19 





14.7 


7.7 



Bull. 348, Univ, of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, Table 6, p. 12, 



Table 16.- Number of persons and possible supply of farm labor per 
household among applicants for rural rehabilitation, by color, 
sex, and rating, Arkansas, 1935 



Item 


Total : 




Number 


of persons per 


household 


: number of : 
: households : 


Total 


Able 
do farm 


to 

work 


: Unable to 
: do farm work 


Total 


20,122 


5 


4 


2. 


5 


2. 


9 


Color: 
















White 


18,355 


5 


4 


2. 


5 


2. 


9 


Negro 


1,767 


5 


8 


2. 


6 


3. 


2 


Sex of head: 
















Male 


19,654 


5 


4 


2. 


5 


2. 


9 


Female 


468 


5 


4 


2. 


5 


2. 


9 


Rating: 
















Approved 


18,221 


5 


5 


2. 


5 


3. 





Group I 


3,622 


5 


7 


2. 


7 


3. 





Group II 


11,767 


5 


5 


2. 


5 


3. 





Group III 


2,832 


5 


.2 


2. 


4 


2. 


8 


Disapproved 


1,901 


4 


.8 


2. 


3 


2. 


5 



- 26 - 



If dependent children heavily burden : low-income families, those with 
the larger number of them should predominate on the relief rolls. This seemed 
not to be substantiated by a careful analysis of the data pertaining to these 
two items. Evidently the number of children at low-income levels does not de- 
termine the length of time a family is on relief, at least not in Arkansas. 

Even though children are not considered a burden, the younger ones 
sometimes are, and the proportion under 1 year of age among the rehabilitation 
families was relatively high, being 6.2 percent as compared with 2.4 percent 
for the rural population of the State. The percentage of babies of this age in 
the general population of the United States was still lower, or 1.8 percent. 14/ 

Educational Attainments 

The amount of formal schooling of the head of the household or family 
averaged between 5 and 6 grades, with a wide variation according to age, 
As would be expected, the younger applicants had gone farther in school, 
those under 25 years having completed 6,6 grades. This average declined 
by 10-year age groups to 3.5 grades for those who were 74 years or over. 

It is surprising that 1 in 20 of all the applicants had had no school- 
ing. Almost 1 in 10 had attended high school and a very few, 0.4 percent, had 
gone to college. Heads among the white families had had noticeably more 
schooling than among the Negroes (Table 17). In fact, 9 percent of the latter 
had had none; the average number of grades completed for all of them was only 
4.3, compared with 5.6 for the whites, 

The way of selecting the applicants for rehabilitation would favor 
an outstanding relation between the given ratings and education. The latter 
seems to have borne very little weight in the matter, however, since the average 
amount of schooling for the disapproved group was only one-half grade below that 
for the others (Table 17). Among the approved clients, the best prospects had 
had only a half-year more schooling than the poorest and not any more of them 
had attained high school. 

For 4,000 of the families with children 19 or more years of age residing 
at home, a special tabulation showed the women to have reached slightly higher 
educational attainments than their husbands, 5.7 compared with 5.2 grades. 
Without doubt, they were younger. The children 19 or more years of age had 
had more schooling than either of their parents, or an average of 6.8 grades 
completed. 

A correlation between amount of schooling and length of time on relief 
indicated that education had little if anything to do with determining the 
period for which aid was granted, Furthermore, the number of children per 
family appeared to be only insignificantly related to the education of wives, 
partly, perhaps, because of the exclusion of many small families. Some of the 

14/ United States Census of Population, 1930. 



- 27 



Table 17.- Percentages of applicants for rural rehabilitation completing 
certain grades in school, and average grade completed, 
by color, sex, and rating, Arkansas, 1935 











Percentages 


of applicants 


completing - 




: Total : 


Average 










: 1 - 4 years 


1 or 


more 


Item 


:number of: 


grade 


No 


1-7: 


8th 


: of 




years of 




: cases 


completed 


grades 


grades : 


grade 


:high school 


college 


Color and sex 






















of head 






















White: 






















Male 


16,463 


5.7 


4 


8 


62.8 


22.7 


9.3 






A 


Female 


312 


5.4 


7 


7 


60.6 


22.4 


9.3 








Negro: 






















Male 


1,345 


4.3 


9 


.1 


77.7 


7.0 


6.2 








Female 


53 


4.4 


5 


7 


83.0 


7.5 


3.8 








Rating: 






















Approved 


18, 178 


5.6 


5 


2 


64.0 


21.5 


9.0 






3 


Group I 


3,629 


5.8 


4 


2 


62.4 


24.6 


8.4 






4 


Group II 


11,721 


5.6 


5 


4 


63.4 


21.5 


9.4 






3 


Group III 


2,828 


5.2 


5. 


8 


68.1 


17.7 


8.3 






1 


Disapproved 


1,894 


5.0 


9. 


9 


63.7 


16.5 


9.2 






7 


Bulletin 348, 


University 


of Arkansas, 


Agricultural Experiment 


Station, 


Table 



41, p. 41. 



younger clients had no families, and many of the older ones represented those 
with children no longer at home. 

Economic Aspect s 

Meager Supply of Livestock 

Compared with all farmers in the State, as of 1935, the rehabilitation 
applicants were very meagerly supplied with the principal kinds of livestock. 
They had only about one-half as many work animals, dairy cows, hogs, and chick- 
ens and still fewer beef cattle per farm (Table 18) . Indicated deficiency in 
the numbers is pointed to by those who conducted the survey as being due in part 
perhaps to the fact that the possession of surplus animals would prevent appli- 
cants from receiving aid. 

It is noteworthy that whites and Negroes had about the same average 
amount of -livestock. A classification by usual tenure status for almost two- 
thirds of the entire group showed the owner to be more adequately supplied than 
the tenant and far more so than the cropper or farm laborer. 



If one may generalize in terms of all kinds of livestock enumerated, 



- 28 - 



Table 18.- Average number of different kinds of livestock 
owned by applicants for rural rehabilitation, by color, 
tenure status, and rating, Arkansas, 1935 



Item 




Average 


number 


per farm 




: Horses : 
: and 
: mules 


Dairy : 
cattle : 


Beef 
cattle 


: • Hogs : 


Chickens 


Color: 












White 


0.7 


1.2 


0.3 


1.4 


16.7 


Negro 


.6 


1.0 


.3 


1.6 


13.5 


Tenure status: 












Owner 


1.2 


1.8 


.6 


1.8 


20.4 


Tenant 


1.0 


1.4 


.4 


1.4 


17.5 


Cropper 


.4 


.9 


.2 


1.2 


13.8 


Farm laborer 


.5 


.9 


.2 


1.0 


12.1 


Rating: 












Approved 


.7 


1.2 


.3 


1.4 


16.5 


Group I 


1.2 


1.6 


.4 


1.6 


19.8 


Group II 


.7 


1.2 


.3 


1.4 


16.7 


Group III 


.2 


.7 


.2 


1.0 


11.4 


Disapproved 


.2 


.6 


.2 


.7 


8.8 


State 1/ 


* 1-7 


2.4 


2.3 


3.5 


31.4 



Bulletin 348, University of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, Tables 
31 and 32, pp. 32 and 34. 

1/ U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1935, except chickens for which figure is from 
similar Census for 1930. 



approved clients had more than twice as much as those who were rejected. 
Furthermore, the average number of each kind diminishes noticeably with lowered 
rating of the applicant, as would be expected, in view of such assets being 
one of the main considerations in the selection of families. 

Indebtedness of Applicants 

Naturally, most of the applicants were in debt. The proportion of the 
total having open accounts and/or secured loans was as high as 86 percent for 
whites and 71 percent for Negroes (Table 19). The latter were more likely to 
have loans secured than the former, because of necessity or perhaps one might 
say "custom," but were less likely to have open accounts,- those held on the 
books of relatives, doctors, merchants, or business men. This may have been due 
to their inability to obtain such credit as well as to less-felt needs for the 
goods or services among them. 



- 29 - 



Table 19.- Percentages of rural rehabilitation households 
with specified types of indebtedness, and average 
amounts of indebtedness per household, by color 
and rating, Arkansas, 1935 







Percentages 


having : 


Average amounts 


of 






indebtedness 


in - : 




indebtedness in - 


Color and 


rating : 




: Open 


: Secured : 




Open : Secured 




: Total 


•.accounts 


: loans : 


Tnt a 1 


: accounts : 


loans 


Color: 
















White 


86 


2 


68.5 


53.2 


$159 


$57 


$185 


Negro 


71 


5 


41.5 


45.4 


154 


37 


208 


Rating: 
















Approved 


85 


1 


66.4 


52.6 


159 


56 


186 


Group I 


91. 


8 


67.2 


71.2 


210 


65 


209 


Group II 


86. 





67.1 


52.6 


155 


56 


182 


Group III 


73. 





62.6 


28.8 


96 


45 


146 


Disapproved 


67. 


2 


58.5 


19.7 


96 


53 


170 


Bulletin 348, 


University of 


Arkansas, Agricultural 


Experiment Station, 


Tables 


34 and 35, pp 


. 35 and 36. 















The percentage of rejected applicants in debt was decidedly smaller than 
of the approved. Apparently they lacked the security for obtaining credit, 
as indicated by the fact that less than 20 percent had loans of the secured 
type while 53 percent of the accepted clients had them. Another indication of 
the relationship between indebtedness and security is that as higher group 
ratings among the approved are considered, the proportion of the total with 
obligations becomes greater. Therefore about 92 percent of the best prospects 
and only 73 percent of the fair were indebted. 

For those applicants who had indebtedness, the total amount including 
that of open accounts and secured loans averaged $159; it was practically 
the same for whites and Negroes (Table 19) . The former had by far the larger 
open accounts but somewhat smaller secured debts. The cause attributed to the 
latter difference is that Negroes obtained larger loans on real estate in con- 
trast to personal property held by whites. 

The total indebtedness of the approved clients far exceeded that of 
the disapproved, $159 being the figure for the former and $96 for the latter. 
Among them Group I had the highest average and Group III the lowest, by more 
than $100 difference. Heavier indebtedness is associated with more livestock 
and other resources which were given weight in the higher ratings. 

Reasons Given for Being on Relief 

Drought was an outstanding factor in the relief situation, since almost 
two-thirds of the reasons given for being on the rolls were designated as crop 



- 30 - 



failure, attributed mainly to deficient rainfall. The next most widely in- 
dicated cause was the industrial let-down during the depression, about 1 in 10 
giving this reason, Less important was the crop-reduction program of the 
Agricultural Adjustment Administration, with about 5 percent mentioning that. 
Still fewer of the causes were ascribed to emergency losses such as bank fail- 
ure, fire, or even theft. Too small farms, poor land, ill management, and un- 
willingness to find work were also given as reasons for requesting aid. Only 
about 1 percent of the relief clients were unable to work, although data on 
health for household heads indicated that nearly 10 percent had some impairment 
such as rheumatism, hernia, or heart disease. This latter figure is further 
checked by the fact that the same proportion of all of the families received 
some medical relief. 

As pointed out in the foregoing study, some of the real reasons for 
being on relief may be more fundamental than those given by the client at 
the time of application. These may be reflected in the general conditions 
under which the applicant lives, particularly the housing facilities. 

The houses were small even though the families were relatively large, 
the average being 3 rooms for whites and 3.3 for Negroes. Overcrowding was 
common, in northwestern Arkansas particularly. Among the white population 
of that section the average density of occupancy was 2.5 persons per room. 
At the other extreme, in the southern portion of the State the average per 
room was 1,5 for whites and 1.8 for Negroes. Generally, overcrowded con- 
ditions were slightly more frequent among the Negroes than the whites, primarily 
because their families were larger. 

The large majority of clients lived in either box or frame houses, 
the former being more numerous. Log houses also were used in all parts of 
the State but were everywhere less common than the box type. In the Ozarks, 
log structures were more numerous than frame, with as many as 25 percent of 
the clients living in the former type. Houseboats were found along both 
the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers, and tents housed some families in central 
and southeastern parts of the State. 

Moderate Dependence on Relief 

Although the cases were transferred from the relief rolls, almost 
5 percent had just been accepted and had never received public assistance, 
other than their rehabilitation loans. Those on the regular relief program 
had been aided for relatively short periods of time, averaging a little more 
than 4 months. About 85 percent of all cases had been on relief a year or less 
and about 60 percent, 6 months or less (Table 20). 

The rejected cases had been on relief for much longer periods of time than 
the approved. About 18 percent of the former had been on the rolls for more 
than a year, compared with less than 10 percent of the latter. For all the ap- 
proved clients, the best prospects had received relief for the shortest period; 
compared with those grouped as fair, noticeably more of them had never been on 
the rolls. Less than 8 percent of the former had been aided for more than a 
year compared with 11 percent of the latter. 



- 31 - 



Table 20.- Percentages of rural households or families of rural 
rehabilitation clients receiving relief for specified number 
of months, by color and rating, Arkansas, 1935 









Percentages 


receiving 


relief 


for 


uoior 






specified periods 


oi Lime 




and 


• M/-> 

MO 


1 — o 


: 4-6 : 


7-9 : 




. io roonxns 


rating 


: relief 


: months 


: months : 


months : 


months 


: or more 


Color: 














White 


4.9 


29.8 


31.7 


14.4 


9.7 


9.6 


Negro 


3.6 


27.0 


33.1 


14.2 


12.6 


9.4 


Rating: 














Approved 


4.8 


29.6 


31.8 


14.3 


10.0 


9.5 


Group I 


7.1 


34.0 


32.7 


11.5 


6.9 


7.8 


Group II 


4.9 


29.6 


31.7 


14.4 


9.7 


9.7 


Group III 


1.6 


23.7 


30.8 


17.9 


14.9 


11.1 


Disapproved 


1.1 


17.4 


25.4 


22.2 


16.1 


17.8 


Bulletin 348, 


University 


of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, Tabl 



11, p. 16. 



The amounts of relief given were relatively small. The average re- 
habilitation family obtained $19 for sickness, $36 for work done, and $32 for 
direct aid - a total of $87, or $16 per person. The per capita amount re- 
ceived by all in the State averaged $14 per month during the last 4 months of 
1934. 15/ Hence, one of these families received but little more in 4 months 
than was given to a typical relief family in 1 month. Evidently "rehab" clients 
were making most of their own way even while on relief. 

Negro applicants received somewhat larger amounts of aid than the white 
although the average for work relief was the same for both. The larger total is 
partly due to more Negro persons per family or household. Also, average length 
of time on relief was slightly longer for Negroes than for whites. The estimate 
for all subsistence goods needed per family by the rehabilitation cases for the 
entire year of 1936 averaged $136. or $25 per person, with practically no dif- 
ferences between Negro and white families in this respect. 

Summary of Findings 

To recapitulate: 94 percent of the cases surveyed in Arkansas lived in 
the open country; farm residence appears to be associated with ability to 
manage capital advances, as would be expected from the emphasis placed on such 



15/ Figure obtained from unpublished data supplied by Arkansas Works Progress 
Administration Office. 



- 32 - 



factors as farm experience, the possession of livestock and equipment and the 
scale of operation, all of which were given consideration in the selection of 
families for rehabilitation. Most of the applicants had been engaged in agri- 
cultural pursuits and the others were mainly common laborers. 

One in five of the applicants were part-time operators, with timber 
work the most common employment off the farm; the other part-time jobs in- 
cluded rice harvest, hauling, mill and road work, and carpentering. 

The largest percentage of the applicants were tenants. Recent changes 
indicate a reduction in the number of renters and croppers and an increase in 
owners and non-farm workers. Approximately one-fourth of the clients were in 
the migratory group who had shifted to other States and other lines of work 
before the depression. 

The applicants were relatively young. Their average age was 40 years, 
as compared with 49 years for farmers in the Nation as a whole. The house- 
holds, averaging 5.4 members, had a larger percentage of children and a smaller 
percentage of old people than was characteristic of the State as a whole. Over- 
crowded homes were typical, the number of persons per room being 1.9 for white, 
and 2.8 for Negro, clients. Most of the families lived in box and frame houses 
averaging 2 or 3 rooms in size. 

The families were meagerly supplied with livestock and other farm re- 
sources, ordinarily covered by secured indebtedness. The amount of equipment, 
scale of farming, and supply of available labor in the family or household seem 
to have been more significant than certain personal or human factors in the 
rating of prospects, largely because they were the more tangible indexes of 
measurement . 

Most of the applicants in Arkansas had been on the regular relief rolls, 
but the average time was only a little more than 4 months. Negroes were much 
less widely represented than whites among them. Although they constitute more 
than one-fourth of the rural population, they comprised less than one-tenth of 
the rehabilitation clientele. Ordinarily they are more frequently taken care of 
by landlords than are the whites and probably are more timid in asking for aid 
from public sources. 



- 33 - 



Chapter IV 
STANDARD FARM PLAN CASES IN REGION II 



The study in Resettlement Region II, which includes Michigan, Wis- 
consin, and Minnesota, was made about a year later than the studies in Alabama 
and Arkansas. It dealt with only the cases which had been accepted for re- 
habilitation and for which standard farm plans had already been drawn up. 
There were approximately 11,600 of these all told - 3,750 in Michigan, 3,250 
in Wisconsin, and 4,600 in Minnesota; 88 percent of the cases in the first 
State, 74 percent in the second, and 63 percent in the third were admitted to 
the program after July 1, 1935. The others had been accepted before that date 
when loans were made by the State Rural Rehabilitation Corporations. Since a 
special tabulation showed little difference between the two classifications, 
they are not given separate consideration in this report. 16/ 

These cases were not rated as in Alabama or Arkansas for acceptance, 
but they had been selected according to certain qualifications determined in 
most instances from preliminary surveys of rural relief clients in selected 
localities or counties representing various types of farming areas. For in- 
stance, a canvass of 900 farm families in nine Wisconsin counties indicated 
approximately two in three of the clients to be rehabilitation possibilities, 
with different amounts of aid and varying degrees of supervision. About one in 
three of these were regarded as capable of commercial farming and the others of 
some type of part-time or subsistence enterprise. Additional canvasses in the 
poorer or marginal agricultural areas of the State showed a lower proportion of 
the total number of families, both on and off the relief rolls, to be prospects 
for rehabilitation. 17/ 

The clients referred from relief were rated by case workers and county 
committeemen on resourcefulness and initiative, with respect to suitability 
for rehabilitation. About one-half of the total were checked on the former 
item with the majority "good," almost 20 percent "excellent," 11 percent 
"fair," and 9 percent "poor." It is evident that the ratings represent an ab- 
normal frequency distribution, owing largely perhaps to their being based on 
the entire relief load. With respect to qualification for rehabilitation they 
indicated little of significance other than that the "excellent" group had 
slightly smaller families. This applied also to initiative; consequently, the 
ratings on both items were ignored in the tabulations on other factors. 



16 / Undoubtedly similarity in these averages is due largely to all cases 
in each State being selected according to arrangements later adopted as the 
standard farm plan by the Resettlement Administration. 

17 / Kirkpatrick, E. L., and others, Rural Rehabilitation and Relief, (mimeo- 
graphed reports) Rural Division, Wisconsin Emergency Relief Administration, 
Research Division, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, and Rural Sociology 
Department, Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Cooperating Nov. 1, 
1934, Oct. 15, 1935, and Nov. 15, 1935. 



Residence, Tenure Status, and Farm Experience 



Majority on Farms 



The clients were widely scattered over the three States. More than 
95 percent of them resided in the open country at the time they applied for 
loans, while the rest lived in villages, towns, or cities (Table 21). Although 
a very few of those who lived in the country were not farming when they asked 
for aid, some village and city dwellers were farm operators. Actually, how- 
ever, more than 9 in 10 of all the cases were genuine farmers living in the 
open country. 

Table 21.- Number and percentages of rural rehabilitation clients, by 
residence and tenure status at time of application, and by tenure 
shifts under standard farm plan, Region II, 1936 1/ 



: Cases reported 

Item : Number ; Percentages 



Residence of client at 
time of application: 
Total 
Farm 

Open country (non-farm^ 
Village (50 - 2,499) 
Town (2,500 - 4,999) 
City (5,000 and over) 

Tenure status at time 
of application: 
Total 
Owner 

Share renter 
Cash renter 
Farm laborer 
Non-farm 



Client under Standard 
Farm Plan: 
Total 
Owner 

In old location 
In new location 
Share renter 

In old location 
In new location 
Cash renter 

In old location 
In new location 



11,598 
10,630 
453 
301 
98 
116 



100.0 
91.7 
3.9 
2.6 
.8 
1.0 



11,570 
4,692 
3,141 
1,768 
1,412 
557 



100.0 
40.6 
27.1 
15.3 
12.2 
4.8 



11,566 
4,951 
4,576 

375 
4,138 
2,516 
1,622 
2,477 
1,501 

976 



100.0 
42.8 
39.6 
3.2 
35.8 
21.8 
14.0 
21.4 
13.0 
8.4 



1/ Region II, includes Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. 



- 35 - 



Extent of Tenancy 

It is noteworthy that more than two-fifths of the accepted applicants 
were on rented farms (Table 21), whereas in 1934 less than one-fourth of all 
farms in the three States were operated by tenants. 18/ Although this pre- 
dominance of tenant clients is partially due to the inability of the program 
to aid owner-operators heavily burdened with real estate, it shows that the 
rehabilitation plan is helping toward the tenancy problem. Furthermore, it 
reached an appreciable number of farm laborers, or one in eight among all of 
the cases. A few of the total were classified as non-farm and approximately 
40 percent were owners. In accordance with the prevailing situation in the 
region there were about twice as many share renters as cash renters in the 
entire group of applicants. 

Tenure Shifts under Standard Farm Plan 

The proportion of owners among the total number would be slightly 
higher under the standard farm plan set-up than was the case when clients 
applied for assistance. It would amount to 42.8 percent compared with 40.6 
who were owners at time of application. There is a noticeable increase in 
the share-renter group, from 27.1 to 35.8 percent of the total, and about 
two in five of these are indicated as going to new or other locations. Like- 
wise, the increase in cash -renters is appreciable, with approximately two in 
five shifting to new places. It should be pointed out that the increased num- 
bers of share and cash renters, as well as owners to some extent, come from the 
farm laborer and non-farm groups in the previous locations. They represent 
primarily the clients who moved to new places. 

Farm Experience of Applicants 

More +han three-fourths of the clients had had 10 or more years of 
farm experience when they applied for loans, while only 3.5 percent had had 
less than 3 years. On the assumption that those who had had more than 10 years 
of experience were older persons who might be expected to be reasonably suc- 
cessful in the rehabilitation venture, no further considerations were deemed 
necessary in the study. Generally the applicant who had operated a farm for 
as much as 10 years had more equipment with which to start reestablishing him- 
self than did the one with less than this. 

Social Characteristics 

Marital Status of Clients 

More than 9 in 10 of the clients represented unbroken households - that 
is, they were married. Approximately 4.5 percent were single, 3 percent 
widowed, and less than 1 percent divorced or separated. 



18/ U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1935. 



- 36 - 

Age of Clients 

Generally, the clients were in the prime of life; two in three of them 
were less than 45 years old. Of those 45 years or older, the large majority 
were between the ages of 45 and 54, inclusive. Those 55 or more years of age 
constitute less than 12 percent of all cases (Table 22) . When comparison is 
made between the more extreme age limits, fewer than 6 percent were 60 or 
over, in contrast to more than 20 percent of the total under 30 years. 

The middle-aged clients had noticeably more children per family; those 
40 to 44 years of age had the highest average number of offspring, 3.6, more 
than three-fourths of whom were less than 15 years old (Table 22). A separate 
tabulation showed that households or families of the older clients were more 
likely to have sons 16 or more years of age residing in the parental home than 
were the younger group. 



Table 22.- Children per family, by age of heads of rural 
rehabilitation households, Region II, 1936 



Children per family 



Age of head : Cases 


reported : 


Total 


: Age 


in years 


(in years 


) ; Number 




Percent ; 


number 


; Under 15 


15 or over 1/ 


Total 


11,740 




100 


.0 


2. 


6 


2.0 


0.6 


24 or less 


836 




7 


.1 




9 


.7 


.2 


25 - 29 


1,667 




14 


.2 


1. 


4 






30 - 34 


1,724 




14 


.7 


2. 


3 


2.2 


.1 


35 - 39 


1,696 




14 


.5 


3. 


1 


2,9 


.2 


40 - 44 


1,775 




15 


.1 


3. 


6 


2.8 


.8 


45 - 49 


1,485 




12 


.6 


3, 


5 


2.2 


1.3 


50 - 54 


1,165 




9. 


.9 


3. 





1,6 


1.4 


55 - 59 


718 




6. 


.1 


2. 


4 


1.0 


1.4 


60 - 64 


386 




3. 


3 


2. 





.5 


1.5 


65 or over 


288 




2. 


5 


1. 


7 


.4 


1.3 


1/ The indication of children 


. 15 


or more 


years old in the 


several younger 


age-of-client 


groups is due to the fact 


that 


in some broken 


families a son 


was regarded 


as the head 


and 


was 


tabulated 


in 


the age-of-client classifica- 


tion. Almost 


5 percent of 


the 


total clients 


were single and 4 percent widowed, 



divorced, or separated. 



Size of Families 

The households or families reached by the rehabilitation program were, 
larger than average in size; they contained 4.8 .persons, compared with 4.5. 
for all farm families in the region in 1929. 19/ With 4.5 percent of the 



19/ 1929 figure obtained from the U. S. Census for 1930. 



- 37 - 



clients single, less than one-sixth of the families had 1 or 2 members; 35.7 
percent had 3 or 4; 27.7 percent, 5 or 6; 13.7 percent, 7 or 8; and the re- 
mainder had 9 or more. In the entire group there were 46 families or households 
with more than 12 members each (Table 23) . 

For standard farm plan rehabilitation families in Region II, the average 
number of children was 2.7, 2 of whom were under 15 years of age (Table 23); 
more than one-half of them were males. On an average, there was at least one 
son under 16 years of age for each family, and in every five families there were 
two with sons above that age. 

With respect to young people as possible helpers on the farm, almost 
30 percent of the families had one or more children 15 to 19 years of age 
at the time of application. More than one-half of them had only one child, 
one-third had two, almost one-tenth had three, and the remaining 42 families 
had four or more. Approximately one-eighth of the families had one or more 
children 20 to 29 years old. As would be expected, however, those families 
which had no children 20 to 29 years old had more children under 15. 

The average number of all children per family appears to be distributed 
proportionately among the different age classifications, indicating that age of 
offspring was not a major consideration in the selection of clients. 



Table 23.- Children per family, by size of household, standard 
farm plan rehabilitation cases, Region II, 1936 



Number 
per 


of persons : 
household : 


Cases 


reported 


: Total 
: number 


Children per 
: Age 


family 
in years 




Number 


Percent 


Under 15 


: 15 or 


over 


Total 




11,677 


100.0 


2.7 


2.0 





.7 


1 - 


2 


1,834 


15.7 










3 - 


4 


4,172 


35.7 


1.4 


1.1 




3 


5 - 


6 


3,230 


27.7 


3.2 


2.4 




8 


7 - 


8 


1,604 


13.7 


5.1 


3.7 


1 


4 


9 - 


10 


622 


5.3 


6.9 


5.0 


1 


9 


11 - 


12 


169 


1.5 


8.7 


5.9 


2 


8 


13 or 


more 


46 


.4 


9.8 


6.5 


3 


5 



Education of Head of Household 

There were no usable data available showing the amount of schooling 
obtained by the client or other members of the household. Although the situ- 
ation varies between sections of the region as well as between States, it is 
probable that educational attainment, on an average, was about the same as that 
for several groups of families surveyed with respect to rural relief in se- 
lected areas of Wisconsin, 1934 and 1935. 



- 38 - 



For example, among the 900 families already referred to, 4 percent of 
the heads had never attended school, 87.5 percent had had from 1 to 8 years of 
schooling, and 8.5 percent had gone beyond the eighth grade. For another group 
of families, 600 in number, located in the vicinity of a submarginal land-pur- 
chase area, heads of those not on relief (less than one-half of the total group 
considered) showed slightly higher educational accomplishment than did the 
others. Four-fifths of both the relief and non-relief groups had had between 

I and 8 years of schooling. Among the latter 2.5 percent had never attended 
school and 16 percent had completed more than 8 grades,' whereas among the former 

II percent had had no schooling and 8 percent had gone beyond the elementary 
grades. 20/ Thus, it would appear that ability or inclination to get along 
without aid may have a slight association, at least, with extent of formal 
schooling. 

Economic Status 

Something of the economic status of the clients is indicated by size of 
farm operated, amount of livestock kept, total assets, and net worth, all of 
which were considered at the time application was made for a loan. Further in- 
dications were the frequency and extent of indebtedness as well as the degree of 
dependence on general relief prior to acceptance for rehabilitation advances. 

Size of Farms 

Size of farm, particularly in terms of crop acreage, varies widely 
with the type of farming, condition of soil, climate, and other natural situ- 
ations, as well as with the extent of development. For this reason the average 
of 68 crop acres per farm for clients is not very significant- 21/ The distri- 
bution according to size, however, is revealing when 9,235 cases for which total 
acres of farm operated are considered. The highest proportion of the total 
(31 percent) were on farms consisting of 80 to 119 acres; slightly fewer 
(28 percent) were on smaller farms with 6 percent on less than 40 acres. There 
were practically as many (27 percent) operating 160 acres or more, with 3 per- 
cent having farms as large as 320 acres (Table 24) . 

The average size of farm, 115 acres, was 10 acres below that for the 
region in 1934; however, it varied widely by States - 89 acres for Michigan, 
106 acres for Wisconsin, and 147 acres for Minnesota. The State averages vary 
in accord with similar figures for all farms in 1929 and 1934 as shown by United 
States Census reports, even though they are noticeably lower. Thus the re- 
habilitation program is reaching farmers in the lower economic levels as in- 
dicated by size of farm operated. 



20/ Kirkpatrick, E. L., and others, op. cit. 

21/ The average of 68 acres is only for clients who were actually operating 
farms when applying for loans. If all cases including farm laborers and 
non- farmers are considered, it is only 55 acres per client. 




CO 


rH 


CD 




CV 


CV 


CV 


to 


o 


to 


rH 


CO 


CD 


c- 


t- 


in 


cv 


rH 


cv 


cv 


to 


o 


CD 


o 


1 — 1 








r— i 


, — 1 




r— | 


















cv 


o 


CO 


to 


o 




CV 


in 


cv 


o 


<H 


o 


cv 




rH 


to 


cv 


CD 


CO 






in 


o 


c- 


! | 






, j 


, — ( 


r- 1 


cv 


r— | 


















o 


I— 1 




t- 


cv 


CD 




00 


tO 


to 


to 


CO 


00 


rH 


CO 


00 




o 


o 


to 


t- 


CD 


CD 


t- 




cv 


cv 


cv 


cv 


cv 


CV 


cv 


m 
















in 


CD 


o 


to 


c- 


rH 




CD 


H 




rH 


rH 


rH 


CV 


cv 


CV 


CD 


CD 


to 


cv 


o 






t- 


CD 


rH 




CD 


CO 


CD 


cv 


cv 














rH 


rH 


CD 


in 


o 


to 


t- 


CV 


cv 


to 


, — | 




, — 1 






CV 


to 


to 


O 


t- 


to 




CO 


c- 


00 


CD 


CD 


N 




CO 


, — 1 


, — \ 


in 




CD 


, — | 


to 






Q 


CD 


to 












rH 


rH 


cv 


Q 


N 


CD 


cv 


CD 


Q 






o 


CD 


rH 




to 


CD 




to 


o 




CM 


to 


rH 


rH 






rH 
















ID 


CV 


(3 


CO 


cv 


00 




to 


tO 


fTi 
\Ji 


<< — \ 
{ ~~> 


L 


LO 


in 






cv 


10 


\_ j 




cv 




N 


< J 


CD 






CV 


, — 1 


, | 








Q 




























(D 
















U 








rr\ 
\J> 




\ji 


|T\ 
\J) 






crj 




rH 


in 


to 


rH 


S 








rH 


rH 


cv 


to 






+■> 












tn 






i 


1 


1 


1 


1 


O 




(0 














rH 


(0 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 









00 


cv 


CD 




CV 










rH 


rH 


cv 


to 


o 













Principal Kinds of Livestock 



The number of horses averaged 1.6 per farm, cattle (primarily milk 
cows), 6.9, and hogs, 1.5 (Table 24); this is less than one-half as many of 
each as for all farmers of the region in 1929. Since Wisconsin is so largely 
a dairy State, clients there were likely to have more cows than in either 
Michigan or Minnesota, but Minnesota had the most horses and hogs per farm. 
These are similar to the average figures for all farms in 1934, as ascertained 
from the United States Census of Agriculture. 

As would be expected, the average number of horses, cows, and hogs 
per farm advanced noticeably with increase in total acres per farm. The 
rise is most marked in the number of cattle, from 2 on farms of less than 40 
acres to almost 13 for those of 320 acres or more (Table 24) . 

Net Worth 

Net worth amounted to approximately $1,200 for the 9,235 owner and 
tenant families. This represents the difference between assets, or the value 
of all goods and possessions, minus the liabilities, or all liens, debts, or 
obligations. It is of interest that the average net worth figure does not change 
noticeably with increase in the size of farm (Table 24). Naturally, the fami- 
lies on larger farms have higher average values for their possessions but they 
have also more obligations against them, leaving a net worth fully as low, if 
not lower, for the ones on the large farms as those on the smaller ones. 

The figures indicating net worth for all of the familis, including 
the laborers and non-farmers, are perhaps as indicative of financial status 
as those for only owners or tenants. They show approximately Si. 070 per family 
for the entire group, the amount for owners being about $1,750, or 2\ times 
that for cash renters, almost 3 times that for share renters and non-farmers, 
and 4 times that for laborers. 

Net worth is considerably higher for the farm families than for the 
others, $1,115, compared to $540 for non-farm country dwellers, $570 for village 
residents, and $635 and $755 for those in towns and cities, respectively. 
Here, as in the tenure classification, the variations in net worth reflect 
corresponding differences in both assets and liabilities. Though the farm group 
had about twice as many goods and possessions as the others, owing to the more 
extensive ownership of land and equipment, their liabilities were greater also. 
The farm laborers ranked last in this respect, with possessions valued at only 
$640, or about one-sixth of the amount held by the owners. 

Debt Obligations 

Debt obligations of the client are a further indication of the finan- 
cial status of his family or household. This was calculated in two forms, 
money owed to creditors other than the Resettlement Administration, including 
Rural Rehabilitation Corporations, and loans granted by the Resettlement Ad- 
ministration on acceptance of the standard farm plan. 



- 41 - 



Less than one-half of the group in the former debt classification owed 
money to other creditors at the time of application for loans, in 1935 or 1936. 
More than one-fifth of these had obligations in amounts of less than $250; 
approximately 15 percent owed $250-$749, 4 percent, $150-$1,249, and 3.5 per- 
cent, $1,250 or more. Proportionately more of the total who were obligated to 
"other" creditors were found in Michigan and Wisconsin than in Minnesota. 
Amounts of money owed to the non-rehabilitation agencies and individuals ap- 
peared to be somewhat closely associated with size of farm. 

Loans Granted to Clients 

With respect to size of loan granted by the Resettlement Administration, 
more than one-half (55 percent) of the clients received less than $600. Ap- 
proximately one-third were granted from $600 to $1,199, and the others $1,200 
or more. The Michigan residents received smaller amounts than did those of the 
other two States, that is, larger percentages of them were in the small-loan 
groups. This is explained, of course, by their having fewer needs in operating 
smaller farms. 

A further indication of the economic status, or at least of the out- 
standing needs, of the clients is found in the principal purpose for which the 
loan was given. Based on the largest single item of expenditure, the chief need 
is work stock for more than two-fifths of all cases. "Other livestock" is the 
largest single item for approximately 1 in 3; chattel mortgages or refinancing, 
about 1 in 7; and all others, less than 1 in 10. 

The needs of cash renters appear to differ from those of other tenure 
groups. Fewer cash renters listed work stock as their major need. A much 
larger proportion of them were in need of other livestock and the proportion 
of this group who required refinancing was about the same as among other tenure 
groups. The principal necessity of farm laborers appears to have been work 
stock and other livestock. Owner cases indicated other needs more frequently 
than did renters or farm laborers, partly, no doubt, because of the inclusion of 
taxes, construction, and repairs. 

Dependence on Relief 

More than 2 in 5 of the clients had never been on the general-relief 
rolls at the time of application for loans; the others had received assistance 
in varying amounts before or during the year 1936 (Table 25) . 

Of those on relief, more than 2 in 5 were accepted for relief in 1934; 
1 in 5 were accepted in 1935; less than 1 in 6 in 1933; and only very few 
during or before 1932. Slightly more of the families in Michigan than in the 
other two States had been aided. 

It is of interest that the families who had not been on relief had 
fewer children than the others, or 2.1 as compared with 3.0 each. Also, those 
which had gone on the rolls most recently had fewer children in contrast to 
those which went on before 1932 (Table 25) . 



- 42 - 



Table 25.- Children per family among rehabilitation clients, by relief 
status and year first accepted for relief, Region II, 1936 



Item 


Cases 


reported : 






fH "i 1 rl -p o ~n 
L/II -L-LU.1 


per 






Total 
number 




Age 


in years 




: Number 


: Percent : 


: Under 


L5 


15 or 


over 


Tnta 1 
1 u tax 




100 


.0 


2 


.7 






o 


7 
• I 


i\ci,lUl b La LUb . 
























42 


.4 


2 


. 1 








p. 


On rol i of 




57. 


6 


3. 











n 
• 1 






















relief: 




















Rp fare* 1 Q - ^? 




1 


.2 


3 


.8 








Q 


1932 


157 


2 


6 


3 


6 


2.8 






.8 


1933 ' 


924 


15 


6 


3 


4 


2.6 






.8 


1934 


2,428 


41 





3 


1 


2.4 






.7 


1935 


1,148 


19 


4 


2 


7 


2.1 






.6 


; 1936 


291 


4 


9 


2 


3 


1.7 






.6 


Year unknown 


909 


15 


3 


2 


9 


2.2 






.7 



Clients who had never received aid before they applied for loans oper- 
ated larger farms than did the others, except that those going on the rolls 
in 1934 slightly exceeded them in the average number of crop acres; also, those 
never on relief reported slightly more horses and cattle per farm. Finally, 
they had more goods or possessions at their disposal, as indicated by averages 
showing that assets, liabilities, and consequently net worth were larger for 
them compared with the others who had received public assistance. 

Although nearly 3 in 5 of the families had been on relief at some time, 
only 2 in 5 among the total had received aid during the 12 months before the 
date of application for loans. One in 10 of the clients had received less than 
$50 aid during the entire time indicated, and the proportion of all those who 
obtained aid in varying amounts declined from 10 percent receiving less than 
$50 to 2.5 percent receiving $400 or more. 

. Standard Farm Plan for Year's Operation 

The standard farm plan required of the client for a loan is primarily a 
farm-operating and financial program for 1 year, based upon the prospective income 
from crops and livestock. It includes a list of probable expenses for farm opera- 
tion, estimated needs for family living, and amortized-debt repayments. The plan 
is developed from a detailed statement showing all real and personal property 
encumbered by secured and/or unsecured debts, as well as an analysis of the 
preceding year's business operations showing income per acre and per animal 
unit. It also embodies a crop-production and livestock-feeding and sales 



- 43 - 



program. More recently it has been drawn up to include a detailed home-manage- 
ment plan which makes possible the supervision of family-living as well as farm- 
business operations and expenditures. 

Estimated Income 

By means of this type of case analysis, made in cooperation with the 
local rehabilitation supervisor, the applicant for a loan considered carefully 
his needs and estimated the yearly income with which he might meet them. Ac- 
cording to these estimates, 4 percent of the clients would make gross incomes of 
less than $500 in 1936. Approximately one-half were expected to make $500 to 
$999, 30 percent $1,000 to $1,499, 10 percent $1,500 to $1,999, and 5 percent 
$2,000 or more. 

The clients who were scheduled to attain more adequate incomes had larger 
families in comparison with others; those on the less-than-$500 level had 1.7 
children in contrast to twice as many for those who expected to make as much as 
$1,500. Increase in the number of older children (15 years or over), with rise 
in estimated income, is more pronounced than among the younger ones (Table 26). 

Of course, the clients who were expected to make the "better" incomes were 
operating noticeably larger farms (in locations where they lived at the time of 
application) . In line with larger acreages they had noticeably more work horses 
and cattle. This applied also to assets. 



Table 26.- Children per family among standard farm plan rehabilitation 
cases, by estimated cash income, Region II, 1936 



Estimated cash : 
income . 1936 : 


Cases 


reported 


Total 
number 


Children per 
Age 


family 
in years 




Number 


: Percent 


: Under 15 


: 15 or 


over 


Total 


11,580 


100.0 


2.7 


2.0 





7 


Less than $500 


508 


4.4 


1.7 


1.3 




4 


$ 500 - 999 


5,856 


50.6 


2.3 


1.8 




5 


$1,000 - 1,499 


3,401 


29.5 


2.9 


2.2 




7 


$1,500 - 1,999 


1,198 


10.3 


3.4 


2.4 


1 





$2,000 - 2,499 


362 


3.1 


3.4 


2.2 


1 


2 


$2,500 or more 


255 


2.1 


3.3 


2.1 


1 


2 



Operating Expenses 

Naturally, the estimated cash returns and farm-operating expense for 
the year are in accord generally, although the margin between them is 
much wider at high than at low income levels. Furthermore, as would be 
expected, living costs incline with a rise in income - from $234 to $626 



- 44 - 



per family. With operation and living costs subtracted from income, the balance 
left for the repayment of loans and/or other uses, increases from practically 
nothing for the less-than-$500-income group to more than $1,300 for those with 
as much as $2,500 anticipated gross returns (Table 27). 



Table 27.- Operating expense, living costs, and balance for 
repayment of loans or other uses, by estimated cash 
income, standard farm plan rehabilitation cases, 
Region II, 1936 



Estimated cash 


: Cases 


reported 


Cash 


: Operating: 


Living 


Loan 


income, 1936 


: Number 


: Percent 


income 


: expense : 


costs 


repayments 


Total 


11,580 


100.0 


$1,028 


$361 


$325 


$342 


Less than $500 


508 


4.4 


363 


148 


234 


19 


$ 500 - 999 


5,856 


50.6 


717 


224 


275 


218 


$1,000 - 1,499 


3,401 


29.5 


1,157 


402 


353 


402 


$1,500 - 1,999 


1,198 


10.3 


1,654 


639 


408 


607 


$2,000 - 2,499 


362 


3.1 


2,154 


917 


527 


710 


2,500 or more 


255 


2.1 


3,263 


1,301 


626 


1,336 



Cash Living Costs 

Because of the growing emphasis and dependence on the home-management 
plan as a counterpart of the rehabilitation program for the typical family, 
data on the consumption aspects of goods and services in the living would be 
revealing. " These were not available for the survey because the estimated costs 
were usually adjusted with other anticipated expenses to what the farm business 
seemed capable of producing under supervision or they were based primarily upon 
the number of persons per family. Owing to the need for information pertaining 
to living costs among rehabilitation households, the estimates were studied from 
the standpoint of their possible association with other important factors. 

Five percent of the families were allotted less than $150 for cash living 
expenses; 30 percent, $150-$249; 34 percent, $250-$349; 18 percent, $350-$449; 
and 13 percent, $450 or more. As the estimated amount rises from less than 
$150 to $650 or over, the average number of persons per family increases from 
3.2 to 8,7 (Table 28). To look at it another way, this means an increase of 
about $90 in cash living per added member in the household. 

The association between living costs and size of family holds for the 
several different tenure classifications, with an indication that the number of 
persons may have had more consideration among owners than among share and cash 
renters when the estimates were prepared. Also, it seems to hold for the 
separate States - less noticeably, however, in Minnesota than in Wisconsin 
or Michigan. 



- 45 - 



Table 28.- Average size of household and children per family, by estimated 
cash living costs, standard farm plan rehabilitation 
cases, Region II, June 1936 



: : Size of : Children per family, by ages 

Estimated cash Cases reported : household :Less than:14 years:15 years 
living costs : Number : Percent :(in persons) :30 years :or under:or over 



Total 




10,377 


100 





4.8 


2.7 


2.0 


0.6 


Less 


than $150 


543 


5 


2 


3.2 


1.3 


1.0 


.3 


$150 


- 249 


3,098 


29 


9 


3.6 


1.4 


1.1 


.3 


$250 


- 349 


3,483 


33 


6 


4.6 


2.4 


1.9 


.5 


$350 


- 449 


1,920 


18 


5 


5.8 


3.6 


2.7 


.9 


$450 


- 549 


820 


7 


9 


7.0 


4.7 


3.3 


1.4 


$550 


- 649 


303 


2 


9 


7.7 


5.4 


3.8 


1.6 


$650 


or more 


210 


2 





8.7 


6.4 


4.4 


2.0 



Cash living costs and size of farm seem fairly closely associated. 
Families which would get along on less than $150 cash for living purposes 
resided on farms averaging less than 90 acres in size with fewer than one- 
half of them in crops, and as the amount goes up (by $100 intervals) to $650 
or over, the total acreage increases to 163 and that in crops to 111. Also, 
there is a consistent increase in number among the principal kinds of livestock. 

Finally, the assets advance from approximately $1,500, for families 
whose cash value of living was less than $150, to $3,600 for those who spent 
$650 or over. As liabilities also incline, though less rapidly than assets, 
net worth of the family and estimated cash living costs appear to be associated. 

The estimated expenditures for food are in close accord with those 
for total cash living costs, from the standpoint of association with number 
of persons per household and indicated economic status. It is noteworthy 
that 12 percent of the families were allotted less than $100 for purchased 
food; 62 percent, $100-$199; 21 percent, $200-$299; and 5 percent, $300 or more. 

Summary of Findings 

The rehabilitation program in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota dealf- 
almost entirely with farm people since more than 95 percent of all clients 
lived in the open country when they applied for loans. Only a few of those 
who lived in the open country were not farming when they asked for aid. On the 
other hand, some of the limited number who resided in villages and towns were 
farm operators. 

More than two-fifths of the accepted applicants operated rented farms, 
whereas less than one-fourth of all farms in the three States were operated by 
tenants in 1934. There were about twice as many share renters as cash renters 



- 46 - 



in the total group of clients. The former were operating larger farms than the 
latter; they possessed more assets generally, but had relatively larger debts 
against them, so that their average net worth was slightly below that of the 
cash renters. 

Although the tenants operated larger farms and kept more livestock than 
the owners, they were in much poorer circumstances financially. They had only 
about a third as many possessions in terms of net worth per family. They had 
about the same number of children per family. The' farm-labor and non-farm 
households had even fewer personal possessions than the tenants, and the former 
had smaller families compared with others. 

Generally the clients were in the prime of life; two in three of them 
were less than 45 years old. The younger men, especially those less than 
35 years of age, operated smaller farms. With fewer years in which to accumu- 
late possessions they had not as many goods in terms of net worth as those who 
were older. By far the majority of all the clients had 10 or more years of 
farm experience. 

The degree of need among the families is indicated by the fact that 
3 in 5 had at some time received general relief. More of them came on the 
rolls in 1934 than during any other single year. Those who had been on relief 
were in slightly worse economic circumstances than the others. That is, they 
had fewer horses and cattle and owned less goods in terms of net worth per 
family. Although they had about the same estimated cash living costs as those 
who had received no aid, generally they had more children per family. 

From a year's operation under the standard farm plan, the 11,600 fami- 
lies were expected to make an average cash income of approximately $1,000. 
More than one-third of the total amount was for farm-operating expenses, ac- 
cording to the estimates, and practically one-third was intended to meet the 
anticipated cash living costs for a typical family of 4 to 5 persons, at or near 
the relief level. The remainder of the income, approximately one-third, was to 
be allocated for other purposes, including necessary payments on the loan. 
Thus it seems that the program is headed toward the principal objective of re- 
habilitation, namely, to help the clients "get on their feet again and become 
self-supporting," rather than to accumulate funds without respect to meeting 
actual needs more effectively. 



- 47 - 



Chapter V 

STANDARD FARM PLAN CASES IN REGION X 

This unit of study deals with more than 4,600 clients in Resettlement 
Region X who, during the first half of 1936, received loans according to the 
standard farm plan arrangement. By far the largest portion of these, 2,151, 
were in Colorado; 1,084 were in Wyoming, and 1,404 in Montana. 22 / As in 
Region II, the data portray for the most part conditions under which the 
clients lived in 1935-36, or the year just before they received their loans. 
The sources of information were the same referral and annual farm-business 
forms, supplemented in most instances with a home-management statement. In ad- 
dition, a questionnaire was sent to each client. More than 80 percent of the 
applicants furnished the requested data. 

The standard farm plan clients consituted less than 4 percent of all 
farmers in the three States. Colorado residents comprised almost 5 percent 
of the total, but their farms, being much smaller than the average, represented 
less than 3 percent of all land devoted to agriculture. Clients in Wyoming, 
representing more than 6 percent, and those in Montana comprising 2.5 percent 
of all farmers, were cultivating 2.5 percent and slightly more than 1 percent, 
respectively, of the agricultural land. 

More than two-fifths of all the cases were on irrigated farms. For such 
applicants, the proportions ranged from 48 percent for Colorado through 44 
percent in Wyoming to 35 percent in Montana. 

Tenure Status and Farm Experience 

Extent of Tenancy 

In 1934 two-thirds, or 66.5 percent, of all farm operators in Colorado, 
Wyoming, and Montana either entirely or partly owned their land. 25 / The rest, 
with the exception of a few farm managers, were tenants; of these, share renters 
were three times as prevalent as those paying cash. 

Among the rehabilitation clients, however, only a few more than two 
in five were owners, while all the others, barring less than 1 percent classi- 
fied as farm laborers, were tenants. Share renters were in the same proportion 
to those on a cash-rental basis as were those for the entire region, but it is 
noteworthy that they were more numerous than owners. Thus, the rehabilitation 
program appears to be reaching far more tenants than owners among the total 
farm population. This is indicative of the fact that proportionately more of 
the latter were able to get along without help, perhaps because they owned more 



22/ Of the 63 counties in Colorado only 39 are represented by clients from 
that State who are reported in this survey, because in 14 counties the re- 
habilitation program is administered from Amarillo, Texas, and in the remaining 
10 there were no standard farm plan cases. 
23/ U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1935. 



- 48 - 



property on which to get credit from other sources. It may be influenced to 
some extent by inability to set up satisfactory plans for owners because of a 
more acute need for farm-debt adjustment among them. 

Length of Residence on Present Farm 

Approximately one-half of the clients had been on the same farms, their 
residences at the time of study, for less than 4 years; over one-fourth of 
them had maintained the same residence from 4 to 10 years, one-seventh, from 
11 to 20 years, and one-tenth, for more than 20 years. Naturally, there was 
less mobility among owners than among tenants, only 30 percent of the former 
having been on the same farms for less than 4 years compared with about two- 
thirds of the latter. 24/ Approximately 22 percent of the owners had contin- 
uously lived on their present farms 11 to 20 years, compared with about 7 per- 
cent for the renters; almost 18 percent had been there for more than 20 years 
in contrast to about 4 percent for all tenants (Table 29). 



Table 29.- Percentages of clients on present farms for dif- 
ferent periods of time, by tenure status, standard 
farm plan rehabilitation cases, 
Region X, 1936 1/ 



Percentages of clients on present farms - 



Tenure : 


Number 


: Less than 


4-10 


11 - 20 : 


More than 


status : 


reporting 


: 4 years 


years 


years : 


20 years 


Total 


2,636 


49.5 


26.0 


14.1 


10.4 


Owner 


1,236 


29.9 


30.6 


21.9 


17.6 


Share tenant 


1,100 


66.1 


22.3 


7.3 


4.3 


Cash tenant 


290 


70.0 


20.3 


6.9 


2.8 


Farm laborer 


10 


60.0 


10.0 




30.0 



1/ Region X includes Montana, Wyoming, and part of Colorado. 



It should be noted that residence on irrigated farms was likely to be 
of shorter duration than on the non-irrigated farms. For 2,800 clients for 
whom this information was available 41 percent of the former and 58 of the 
latter had been on the farm they operated at time of study less than 4 years; 
19 and 30 percent of the two groups had been on the same places 11 years or 
more. The renters, moreover, had leases of very short duration. Practically 
all of them (58 percent of all the clients) had 1-year leases; almost two-thirds 
of the lease holders had agreements for only 1 year and about five-sixths 
had them for less than 4 years. Many of the leasing agreements were for a short 



24/ The number of farm laborers was so small that percentages and averages 
for them have little weight. Although carried in the tables, they will in 
most instances be ignored in the comparisons. 



- 49 - 



term. Nearly 58 percent of the tenants had leases running for only 1 year at a 
time, 21 percent had 3-year leases and 11 percent had 5-year leases. The aver- 
age term of lease was shorter on irrigated farms than on dry-land farms. In 
each State the proportion of 1-year leases was 8 to 10 percent higher for irri- 
gated than for non-irrigated farms. Montana had a considerably smaller per- 
centage of 1-year leases than the other two States, the figures being 28 per- 
cent 1-year leases for Montana as compared with 76 percent and 58 percent for 
Colorado and Wyoming respectively. 

Length of Residence in County 

Again, the owners were more stable from the standpoint of continuous 
residence in the same county. Almost 70 percent had lived for more than 10 
years in the county of residence at time of application. Only 55 percent of the 
share renters and 49 percent of the cash renters had similar records. At the 
other end of the scale, whereas 14 percent of the owners had lived in the county 
less than 4 years, the corresponding figures for share and cash renters were 16 
and 22 percent respectively (Table 30) . 

The clients in Montana were relatively less mobile with respect to years 
in the same county than were those in Colorado or Wyoming; that is, a notice- 
ably higher proportion, 44 percent, had been in the same county more than 20 
years, compared with 32 percent and 29 percent for the latter States re- 
spectively. On the other hand, only 12 percent had been in Montana less than 4 
years in contrast to 18 percent for Colorado and 21 percent for Wyoming. 



Table 30.- Percentages of clients residing in present county 
for different periods of time, by tenure status, 
standard farm plan rehabilitation cases, 
Region X, 1936 



: : Percentages of clients residing; in present county - 

Tenure : Number : Less than : 4 - 10 : 11 - 20 : More than 

status : reporting : 4 years : years : years : 20 years 



Total 


3,394 


16 


1 


23 


7 


24 





36 


2 


Owner 


1,485 


14 


3 


16 


7 


24 


8 


44 


2 


Share renter 


1,445 


16 


1 


29 





24 


6 


30 


3 


Cash renter 


445 


21 


8 


29 


4 


20 





28 


8 


Farm laborer 


19 


26 


3 


36 


8 


5 


3 


31 


6 



Farm Experience 



On an average, the clients had farmed for 14 years, practically the same 
figure prevailing for the three States. About 27 percent of all of them had 



- 50 - 



had more than 20 years of such experience, 13.5 percent had farmed less than 
4 years, 30 percent, 4 to 10 years, and another 30 percent, 11 to 20 years 
(Table 31) . 

Table 31.- Percentages of clients with farming experience, by length of 
experience and tenure status, standard farm plan 
rehabilitation cases. Region X, 1936 



Percentage s o perating _ farms for themselves - 



Tenure : 
status : 


Number 
reporting 


: Less than 
: 4 years 


4-10 

: years 


11-20 : 
years : 


More than 
20 years 


Total 


3,302 


13.5 


29.8 


29.9 


26.8 


Owner 


1,465 


9.9 


25.3 


30.6 


34.2 


Share renter 


1,404 


16.3 


33.9 


28.6 


21.2 


Cash renter 


421 


15.9 


31.3 


32.1 


20.7 


Farm laborer 


12 


50.0 


33.3 


16.7 





Social, Characteristics 
Size of Family 

Families or households averaged 4.6 persons, or 0.3 larger than all farm 
families of the region in 1930; those on irrigated farms exceeded the others 
slightly in size. The average number of children per family was 2.7, 25/ 
ranging in age composition as follows: 0.7 per family, 1 to 5 years; 1.3, 6 to 
15 years: 0.4 boys over 16 years; and 0.3 girls over 16 years (Table 32). 



Table 32.- Children per family, by size of family, among standard 
• farm plan rehabilitation cases, Region X, 1936 



Number of 






: Children per 


family, by 


age and sex 


persons per 


: Cases 


reported 


: 1 - 5 


6-15 


:Boys over 


: Girls over 


family 


: Number 


: Percent 


: years 


years 


: 16 years 


: 16 years 


Total 


4,026 


100.0 


0.7 . 


1.3 


0.4 


0.3 


1-2 


692 


17.2 










3-4 


1,431 


35.5 


.6 


.5 


.3 


.2 


5-6 


1,110 


27.6 


.9 


1.8 


.4 


.3 


7-8 


536 


13.3 


1.1 


3.0 


.7 


.5 


9 or more 


257 


6.4 


1.6 


4.3 


1.2 


.7 



25/ A few of the households comprised single persons; this accounts in part 
for variation from what would be the normal number of adults and children 
in families of 4.6 persons, namely, 2 and 2.6. It is possible also that 
this figure may be slightly influenced by the inclusion of persons other than 
parents and immediate children in a few of the households. 



- 51 - 



Families of 1 or 2 persons comprised over 17 percent of those studied, 
of 3 or 4 persons, more than 35 percent, and of 5 or 6 persons, about 28 
percent. The remaining 20 percent of the families had 7 or more members, 
with approximately S percent of the total reporting 9 or more (Table 32) . 

Age of Operator 

The average age of the head of the household was 41 years, there being 
only slight variations in this respect for the different States. Over 29 per- 
cent of the total were between 40 and 49 years of age (Table 33) . The next 
highest proportion, 28 percent, was in the age group comprising 30-39 years; 
20 percent, 50-59 years; 16 percent, 20-29 years; and 7 percent were 60 years of 
age or over. In other words, more than three-fourths of the clients were be- 
tween 30 and 60 years of age. As would be expected, owners were oldest among 
the different tenure groups; they averaged 44 years, compared with 42 for cash 
tenants and 40 for the share renters. 



Table 33.- Age of clients and average age by tenure groups, standard 
farm plan rehabilitation cases. Region X, 1936 



Age in years : 
and tenure status : 




Cases 


reporting 




Number 


: Percentages : 


Average age 
in years 


Total 


3,873 


100 


.0 




20 - 29 


643 


16. 


3 




30 - 39 


1,060 


27, 


5 




40 - 49 


1,133 


29. 


4 




50 - 59 


769 


19. 


9 




60 - 69 


245 


6. 


3 




70 - 79 


23 




6 




All tenure groups 


3,716 


100 


.0 


40.9 


Owners 


1,603 


43 


.1 


44.3 


Share renters 


1,611 


43 


.4 


40.2 


Cash renters 


480 


12 


.9 


42.3 


Farm laborers 


22 




.6 


33.2 



Education of Head of Household 

The extent of schooling reported by clients indicates that 22 percent 
percent of them had not gone beyond the seventh grade. Almost two-thirds, or 
64.7 percent, closed their formal schooling at some point between the eighth 
grade and third year in high school, while only 1.4 percent, or 48, of the 
total were college graduates (Table 34) . 



- 52 - 



Table 34.- Percentages of heads of households completing specified 
grades in school, by tenure status, standard farm plan 
rehabilitation cases, Region X, 1S36 







: Percentages completing specified 


Tenure status 


: .Number 




grades in 


school 1/ 






: reporting 


: Less than £ 


: 8-11 : 


12-15 : 


16 or more 


Total 


3,372 


22.1 


64.7 ■ 


11.8 


1.4 


Owner 


1,481 


23.2 


62.9 


11.8 


2.1 


Share renter 


1,431 


21.6 


65.4 


12.1 


1.9 


Cash renter 


449 


20.5 


67.7 


11.7 


1.1 


Farm laborer 


11 


41.7 


5.0 


8.3 




1/ The 3rd and 


4th years of 


college are 


classified 


as grades 


15 and 16. 



Table 35.- Percentages of operators or heads of households having spec- 
ified years of experience at farm operation, by grades completed, 
standard farm plan rehabilitation cases, Region X, 1936 







Percentages operating farms 


for - 


Grades 


Number : 


Less than : 


4 - 10 : 


11-20 : 


More than 


completed 1/ 


: reporting : 


4 years : 


years : 


years : 


20 years 


Total 


3,372 


14.1 


30.1 


28.8 


27.0 


Less than 8 


746 


10.6 


26.4 


31.4 


31.6 


8-11 


2,181 


13.9 


30.2 


29.3 


26.6 


12 - 15 


397 


21.5 


37.4 


25.2 


15.9 


16 or more 


48 


17.0 


23.4 


29.8 


29.8 


1/ The 3rd and 


4th years of 


college are 


classified as grades 


15 and 16 



Table 36.- Percentages of operators or heads of households residing on 
present farms for specified number of years, by grades completed, 
standard farm plan rehabilitation cases, Region X, 1936 







Percentages 


residing 


on present farms for - 


Grades 


: Number : 


Less than : 


4 - 10 : 


11-20 : 


More than 


completed 1/ 


: reporting : 


4 years : 


years : 


years : 


20 years 


Total 


3.372 


51.0 


25.2 


13.5 


10.3 


Less than 8 


746 


46.6 


26.3 


13.3 


13.8 


8-11 


2,181 


51.7 


24.7 


13.8 


9.8 


12 - 15 


397 


53.0 


25.0 


11.1 


10.9 


16 or more 


48 


45.9 


33.3 


12.5 


8.3 


1/ The 3rd and 


4th years of 


college are 


classified as grades 


15 and 16. 



- 53 - 



One would expect the amount of schooling attained by the operator to 
have at least an indirect bearing on the extent of his experience in farming. 
This seems to be the case, especially until the college-graduate level is 
reached; that is, proportionately more of those who reported the higher grades 
of schooling had had less than 10 years' experience at farm operation (Table 
35). The younger operators, while likely to have more schooling than the older 
ones, have had fewer years in which to accumulate such experience as operators. 

Furthermore, it might easily be expected that stability of families 
in their present residence would be positively associated with the greater 
amount of schooling attained by the operators. This is not substantiated by 
data showing a percentage distribution of those who reported different grades 
attained, according to years on the present farm (Table 36) . The lack of this 
association may be partially accounted for by the fact that proportionately more 
of those representing a mobile group with less experience are younger operators 
who undoubtedly have more formal education. 

Economic Statu s 

As with other units of study here reported, indication of the economic 
status of the family or household is limited to such items as size of farm, 
amount of livestock, income, and dependence on relief. Further suggestion of 
this is found in different items pertaining to family living. 

Size of Farm 

The average size of farm operated was highest for owners, 451 acres, 
compared with 314 for cash, and 291 for share, tenants (Table 37). The average 
for all tenure groups, 361 acres, was less than one-half of approximately 
800 acres for all farms of the three States in 1934. Colorado has much smaller 
units than those in Wyoming or Montana, and this also applied to those of the 
study; the averages for the rehabilitation groups were 217 acres for the former 
and 418 and 488 respectively for the latter. Of course, the irrigated holdings 
were much smaller than the others; for all the States they averaged approximate- 
ly 200 acres compared to 500 acres for the dry-land farm. 

Perhaps as significant as total acreage, as an indication of the eco- 
nomic status of these farmers, is the acreage in crops of various kinds. Amount- 
ing to approximately 100 acres, this was noticeably less than the average number 
of crop acres reported per farm for the three States in 1934, as evident 
from the United States Census of Agriculture for 1935. 26/ 

Livestock 

The average number of different kinds of livestock are not available, 



26/ Crop acres as used in the study include all seeded acreages, summer 
fallow, seeded pasture, and idle crop acres but not abandoned crop land. 



- 54 - 



Table 37.- Total acres, acres in crops, and animal units per farm, by 
tenure status of operator, standard farm plan rehabilitation 
cases, Region X, 1936 



Tenure 
status 


: Number 
: reporting 


: Percent: 
:of total: 


Total : 
acres : 


Average per farm 
Crop: Animal units 
acres: Number: Value per unit 


Total 


3,871 


100.0 


361 


98 


11.6 




$47. 


Owners 


1,646 


42.5 


451 


95 


14.7 




46. 


Share renters 


1,711 


44.2 


291 


113 


9.3 




48. 


Cash renters 


491 


12.7 


314 


57 


9.9 




47. 


Farm laborers 


23 


.6 


52 


19 


3.3 




49. 



but the amount was interpreted in terms of animal units per farm. 27 / The 
average number for all clients. 11.6, was noticeably exceeded by that for 
owners; for tenants it was less (Table 37) . There was slightly more livestock 
on the dry-land farms than on the irrigated ones. The value per animal unit on 
all farms averaged $47 with practically no difference by tenure status; thus it 
was approximately $545 per farm. Livestock sales per animal unit for the year 
amounted to $18 on an average, with the figure of $16 for share renters about 
$3 below that for owners and cash renters. 

Farm Machinery 

Machinery reported by these clients averaged approximately $425 per 
farm. The figure was $60 higher for dry-land operators than for others. When 
based on the average value per crop acre, it was higher among owners than among 
either share or cash renters. More than one-fifth of all the clients had 
tractors; 24 percent of the owners, 23 of the share renters, and 22 of the cash 
renters reported such machinery. 

It is of further interest that the operator's equity in the farm live- 
stock and machinery amounted to almost 60 percent of the total value; the average 
was higher for clients on irrigated than for those on dry-land farms, but the 
percent of equity in land averaged the same. 

Income 

Gross farm income for the year 1935 averaged $628 for all clients; it was 
noticeably higher for owners than for either share or cash renters, or approx- 



27/ Ordinarily an animal unit means 1 horse, 1 cow, 2 calves, 5 hogs, 7 
sheep, 14 lambs, or 100 chickens. 



- 55 - 



imately $720, $570, and $560, respectively. This ratio applied to all the 
States - less noticeably, however, to Wyoming than either of the other two 
States - and the average income for all tenure groups as well as for all ap- 
plicants was highest for Montana. The average income was $175 higher on the 
irrigated than on the dry-land farms. 

Almost 30 percent of the total income was from crops, slightly less from 
livestock, and the balance from other sources, including outside labor, Govern- 
ment benefit payments, pensions, and bonuses. In Montana one-third of the 
total was from crops, compared with approximately one-fifth in the other two 
States; also one-third was from livestock in contrast to almost two-fifths in 
the others. With respect to incomes anticipated or estimated for 1936, a con- 
siderably higher proportion of the total would accrue from sale of crops and 
about the same from livestock compared to the actual figures for 1935. 

Income for 1935 showed no striking association with size of family 
or household. The rise in the average, from about $550 for those with 2 per- 
sons or less to almost $800 for those with 10 or more members, was not at all 
consistent; this lack of concomitant rise in income varied widely by States. 
Amount of capital appears to be more closely associated with age of operator; as 
would be expected, clients who were under 30 years of age had noticeably smaller 
incomes, while those 70 years or over had larger ones except in Montana, due in 
part perhaps to the influence of several excessively high amounts among a very 
small group. 

Income had some association with education of the operator, as indicated 
by the fact that those who had had less than 8 years in school reported ap- 
proximately $550 on an average, as compared with $620 for those who had completed 
8-11 grades, $775 for those who had finished high school or three years of col- 
lege, and $1,220 for college graduates. Size of farm, in total acres, crop 
acres, or animal units, seemed insignificantly related to education, suggest- 
ing that those clients with more schooling made somewhat better use of their 
resources; this was not borne out in all instances, especially when the sum- 
maries were tabulated on practically a two-grade basis from less than the fourth 
year through college. 

Dependence on Relief 

No information is available showing the number of families or households 
on relief before they were accepted for rehabilitation. However, 42 percent 
of the total in the three States received subsistence grants during the year of 
study. The proportion receiving grants was as high as 64 percent in Wyoming 
compared with 48 in Colorado and only 23 in Montana. There was no significant 
difference in the proportions for families on irrigated and dry-land farms. 

The average grant to the families who were aided in this way amounted to 
less than $80. It was lowest in Montana, $62, compared with $83 for Colorado 
and Wyoming. For all three it was only $6 higher for the dry-land than for the 
irrigation farmers. 



- 56 - 



One would expect the frequency and amount of grants to increase with a 
rise in the size of family. This was the case when the schedules were sorted 
on the family-size basis, although the rise, in proportion to the total number 
aided, was not consistent or regular (Table 38) . The average amount granted to 
those who were aided more than doubled with increased size of household from 1 
and 2 to 9 and 10 or more persons. Neither the percentage receiving grants nor 
the amount given appears to be related to age of operator, 



Table 38.- Percentages of clients receiving grants and amounts obtained 
by those who received them, by size of family, standard 
farm rehabilitation cases, Region X, 1936 



Number of 


: Number 


Percentages : 


Average amount 


persons per 


: of : 


receiving : 


of grants per 


family 


: farms 


grants : 


family receiving 


Total 


4,026 


41.8 


$79 



1 


155 


27.1 


45 


2 


537 


36.3 


55 


3 


705 


36.2 


63 


4 


725 


42.4 


73 


5 


642 


43.5 


81 


6 


468 


47.9 


89 


7 


319 


49.2 


99 


8 


217 


45.2 


99 


9 


125 


48.0 


117 


10 or more 


132 


47.7 


111 



Family L ivin g 
Size of Dwellings 



It would be helpful to know the degree of adequacy in homes among the 
rehabilitation families. The nearest approach to this is an indication that 
two-fifths of all of them lived in dwellings having from 1 to 3 rooms; more than 
one-half of the homes had from 4 to 6 rooms, and 8 percent, had 7 rooms or more. 
Houses were noticeably larger in Colorado than in either Wyoming or Montana; 
that is, of the total, fewer had smaller buildings and more had at least 7 
rooms. The size of dwelling occupied appears to have a positive association 
with the extent of schooling attained by the head of the household; in other 
words, proportionately less of the operators who reached the higher grades in 
school lived in small structures and more lived in houses with 7 rooms or more. 
It is also true that, on an average, those with the more schooling were heads of 
smaller families. 



- 57 - 



Household Facilities 

Less than 8 percent of the homes had piped-in water; these represented 
9 percent of the total families on irrigated farms compared with 6 percent for 
the others. This facility was about twice as frequent among Colorado clients 
as among those in Wyoming and Montana. According to data of the United States 
Census for 1930, 6 percent of all farm houses in the three States had this con- 
venience, 

Similarly, there were 6 percent of the dwellings on rehabilitation farms 
with electricity, including that furnished by the home plant as well as from 
power lines. Those who had this convenience were only about one-half as common 
among the dry-land farmers as among the others and noticeably less frequent in 
Wyoming than in either Colorado or Montana. For the three States as a whole 
11 percent of the farms were supplied with electricity in 1930. 

Telephones were available in 13 percent of the households, compared with 
31 percent among all farmers in the region in 1930; variations ranged from 
17 percent in Colorado through 11 percent in Wyoming to 7 percent in Montana. 
There was little difference in the figures for dwellers on irrigated and non- 
irrigated farms. 

Two-fifths of the families had radio sets and over one-half reported 
some musical instrument. Seventy percent had automobiles and as many as 
6 percent reported two. This compares very favorably with the 74 percent of all 
farmers in the region who had them in 1930. On an average, the families were 
a little over 3 miles from the local community meeting place and/or school, 
almost two times this distance from the church they attended, and nearly 10 
miles from their trading center. 

Several of these facilities seem to be closely related to advanced 
schooling of farm operators. For example, as the grade attained rises from 
less than the eighth to the college-graduate level, the proportion of houses 
with piped-in water increases from 4 to 12 percent; that for telephones goes 
up irregularly from 7 to 12 percent; and that for radios, from 39 to 50 percent. 

Estimated Living Costs 

Data showing the value of foods produced, as well as cash expenditures 
for food, clothing, household operation, medical care, and personal items, 
are limited to Colorado and Wyoming. They represent anticipated needs for the 
coming year rather than recorded or estimated figures for the year 1935 for 
which the income data were given. Since they are limited to only the two States, 
those for each are considered separately. 

For Colorado the estimated cash living costs averaged $317 per family. 
This is approximately the same as a corresponding figure for all of the re- 
habilitation households in the region of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. 
The amounts for the principal groups of items are as follows: food $116, 
clothing $83, household operation $71, medical care $20, and personal items 



- 58 - 



$27. The estimated value of food to be produced for home use during the year 
averaged $176, making a total value of family living of less than a. $500 
average for families of 4 or 5 members. 

Of course, the larger families would have the higher estimated cash 
expenditures, with the amount increasing from $241 for those of 2 persons to 
$478 among those having 10 or more. For food produced it increased from $118 
to $303. Other tabulations show that there is little or no association between 
number of persons per family and size of farm, 

The figures for the Wyoming families are considerably higher than those 
for Colorado - $391 for cash outlay and $266 for food produced. Of the estimated 
cash expenses, $155 would go for food, $103 for clothing, $71 for household 
operation, $25 for medical care, and $37 for personal items. When estimated 
on a per-capita basis, the averages decrease from $134 in the 2-person families 
to $66 in the families with 10 or more persons. The corresponding figures for 
Colorado are $120 and $48. 

It is of interest that the estimated costs of living do not vary widely 
for irrigation and dry-land farmers. Furthermore, averages are practically 
the same for owners, share renters, and cash renters. 

Summary of Findings 

The rehabilitation clients of this region comprise a higher proportion 
of tenants than is characteristic of the total farm population. Mobility among 
them was high, in terms of continuous years on the present farm operated, as 
indicated by the facts that many were on their present places 4 years or less 
and that few were there 20 years or over. Also, was high as measured by the 
number of years the farmer lived in the same county, especially among the cash 
renters. Naturally the tenants were far less stable than the owners. Leases 
among the former were of short duration, over one-half of them being on a 1-year 
basis . 

Families were slightly larger than the average for the region. The 
average number of children was 2.7, one-half of them being 6 to 15 years of age. 
The operators, or heads of households, averaged 41 years, almost three-fifths 
of them being between 30 and 49 years of age. Age of head of family had 
no significant bearing on size of farm or value of machinery and livestock 
available. Nor did there appear to be any relation between size of family and 
acres per farm. 

Almost two-thirds of the clients had finished their formal schooling 
at some point between the eighth grade and the third year in high school. Edu- 
cation seemed to give its possessor some advantages. For instance, the high- 
school graduates, including those who attended college, had larger farms, better 
incomes, more household conveniences, and larger houses. Whether an advantage 
or not, their families were not so large as were those of the clients who had 
had less formal schooling. These aspects do not indicate that selections for 
the present program be limited to farmers with relatively more schooling but 



- 59 - 



that all possible consideration be given to providing and encouraging wider use 
of all possible educational facilities for adults, 

Estimated living costs were higher among the larger families, but 
heavier cash expenses for food and clothing left them with proportionately- 
less for medical care, personal costs, farm and home capital needs, and other 
necessities. The larger families had a higher proportion of their number in- 
cluded among those who received relief grants and naturally they obtained more 
per family; they were not granted as much on a per-person basis. 

The farms occupied by these 4,600 standard farm plan clients were much 
smaller than all in the region. This smaller size is not accounted for on the 
basis of different types of farming except possibly that relatively more de- 
pendence was placed on crops and less on livestock than was characteristic of all 
farmers in the three States. Clients on the larger farms made better incomes 
than did those on the smaller ones. In fact, the data indicate that limited 
size of farm among the families was one of the major reasons that they were 
forced to seek assistance. 

A more detailed analysis of the data made in the Regional Office indicates 
that efficient production along such lines as butterfat per cow, hogs per 
litter, eggs per hen, and crop yields per acre greatly enhance the client's 
relative chance for success in the economic aspects of the program. These are 
important considerations, especially as they are weighed against or integrated 
with the factors of age, education, family composition, home living facilities 
and improved planning of consumption, all looking toward rehabilitation of the 
family on a social and/or psychological as well as an economic basis. 



- 60 - 



Chapter VI 

STANDARD FARM PLAN CLIENTS IN SELECTED 
TYPES OF FARMING AREAS 

Eight sample groups of rehabilitation clients representing widely sepa- 
rated types of farming areas were studied for the year 1936. In initiating this 
survey, the Rural Rehabilitation Division of the Resettlement Administration 
considered size of case load, character of State program, and interest of re- 
gional personnel in the matter. The study included from 250 to 500 cases repre- 
senting each of the following areas within their respective States: Flue- 
Cured Tobacco, North Carolina; Piedmont Section of the Cotton Belt, Alabama; 
Delta Area of the Cotton Belt, Mississippi; Hill Section of the Cotton Belt, 
Arkansas; Livestock Farming in the Corn Belt, Illinois; Western Corn Belt, 
Nebraska; Spring-Wheat Production, North Dakota; and Cash Grain-Poultry-Fruit, 
Oregon. 

A limited number of items pertaining to social characteristics and eco- 
nomic status of the household were compiled, from files in the regional offices, 
for homogeneous areas that were regarded as representative of specific types 
of farming indicated. 28/ They were taken from only the case-referral and 
standard-farm-plan forms. For each area chosen, cases were considered alpha- 
betically, omitting those that were incomplete on the survey items, until a 
representative sample was obtained. 

Since the selections were made to represent, as far as possible, farming 
sections of the country, the results were not combined, but are presented ac- 
cording to separate States. They are approached from the standpoint of the most 
significant factors, among which are tenure, mobility, age and schooling of 
client, size of household, acres cropped, and income. 

North C arolin a, Tobacco Farming 

Of the 307 cases in the North Carolina tobacco-farming unit of the 
survey 4 in 5 were tenants. 29/ This proportion was noticeably higher than 



28 / A 1-page blank made available by the Rural Rehabilitation Division, Re- 
settlement Administration, provided for specific information from RA-RR 12 and 
14. On receipt in Washington the transcribed schedules were reviewed or checked 
for accuracy, coded, and tabulated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 

29/ In this survey, tenants include those called "croppers" in the Census. 
Workers who filled the schedules were instructed to observe owner, part-owner 
and part-tenant, and tenant classifications. Part-owner cases, of which there 
were none or few for all areas except the Dakota Spring Wheat Section, were 
omitted from the tabulations. Owing to the relatively small numbers in the dif- 
ferent groups classified by size of household and amount of schooling, separate 
figures are not presented for owners and tenants in the tables. However, sig- 
nificant comparison for the two groups as evident from these and other tabu- 
lations are called to attention throughout the report. 



- 61 - 



for all farm operators of the State in 1934, which according to the 1935 United 
States Census of Agriculture was less than 1 in 2 . The average age of owner 
(46) exceeded that of tenants (41) by 5 years, but the families of each group 
were practically the same size, or 6.2 and 6.3 persons respectively, compared 
to 5.3 for all rural farm households of the State, according to the United 
States Census for 1930. A large, majority of all families had from 3 to 8 
members, more than one-tenth had 9 or 10, and 6.5 percent had as many as 11 or 
more, while only 5.9 percent had less than 3 (Table 39). 

Formal schooling among these farmers was not at a high level, as in- 
dicated by the fact that more than one-half of them had not gone beyond the 
fourth grade (Table 40) . Less than 5 percent had received more than an eighth- 



Table 39.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value of 
household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabilitation 
cases, North Carolina Tobacco Section, 1936 



Number of 






; Age of :Years of residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


Cases 


reported 


: operator : On 


present : 


In : 


household 


household 


Number 


: Percent 


: in years : 


farm : 


county : 


goods 


Total 


307 


100.0 


42.4 


6.5 


32.7 


$ 85 


1-2 


18 


5.9 


41.0 


8.2 


31.5 


84 


3 - 4 


62 


20.2 


40.1 


5.6 


31.9 


83 


5-6 


92 


30.0 


42.4 


6.0 


29.3 


101 


7-8 


82 


26.7 


42.7 


8.7 


33.8 


75 


.9-10 


33 


10.7 


44.6 


4.2 


38.7 


72 


11 or more 


20 


6.5 


44.8 


5.4 


36.9 


76 



Table 40.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth, and total income, 
by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan rehabilitation 
clients, North Carolina Tobacco Section, 1936 









Size of 


Number 








Schooling 


: Cases 


reported 


household 


of acres 


Assets 


Net worth 


Total 


of head 


: Number 


: Percent 


(persons) 


in crops 






income 


Total 


304 1/ 


100.0 


6.3 


16.8 5 


& 724 


$ 460 3 


& 424 


Grades completed: 
















0-4 


167 


54.9 


6.4 


16.0 


619 


361 


378 


5-7 


104 


34.2 


6.3 


17.4 


735 


445 


467 


8 


19 


6.3 


6.0 


16.1 


1,206 


798 


470 


9-10 


6 


2.0 


4.8 


23.3 


■ 755- 


498 


•612 


11 - 12 


7 


2,3 - 


4,6 . 


17.0 


1,800 


1 , 691 


572 


13 or over 


1 


.3 


3.0 


46.0 


307 


307 


651 



1/ One owner and 2 tenants^ did not report grades completed. 



- 62 - 



grade education, and there was little difference in the amount completed 
by owner and tenant groups. Formal schooling bore little relation to different 
factors observed in the tabulation, except to size of family and value of house- 
hold goods, as evident from only a mere suggestion that the operator who had 
completed more grades had a greater net worth or larger income and from the 
fact that such families were noticeably smaller. 

Mobility 

It is noteworthy that more than one-half of the clients had been on 
their present farms less than 3 years; almost 17.5 percent had been there 3 or 
4 years, 22 percent, from 5 to 24 years, and 8 percent, 25 years or over. Only 
48 percent of all farmers in the State, in contrast to almost 70 percent of the 
rehabilitation families, had maintained residence for less than 5 years on the 
same farm as in 1934. Naturally, owner clients were far less mobile in this 
respect than tenants, the average number of years in the present location being 
16 and 4 years respectively for the two groups. Also, owners reported longer 
continuous residence (40 years) in the county than did tenants (31 years). A 
part of this, however, is accounted for by the fact that the former represent a 
group 5 years older than the latter. 

Economic Aspects 

By far the majority of the clients, 70 percent, had less than 20 acres in 
crops; only 3 percent cultivated 40 acres or more. The average for owners 
(17 acres) was only 2 acres higher than for tenants. 

With respect to financial status a 6-person family (which was average for 
the group) had approximately $760 worth of goods or possessions, with lia- 
bilities amounting to almost $300. Owners fared far better than tenants, with 
assets of $2,430 and liabilities of $1,045, in contrast to $375 and $125, 
respectively, for tenants making a net worth of $1,385 and $250 for the two 
groups. The owners reported $103, and the tenants $81, worth of household goods. 

Gross family income averaged $426; the bulk of this, $368, was derived 
from sale of crops, $23 from livestock, and $35 from other sources. The owner's 
income of $509 was only about $100 more than that of the tenant. One-third of 
the former and more than two-fifths of the latter had less than $300 from all 
sources; at the other extreme 11 percent of the owners and 3 percent of the 
tenants had $1,000 or more. 

Piedmont Section, Alabama 

More than 4 in 5 of the 489 cases in the Piedmont Section of the Cotton 
Belt were tenants. This proportion is noticeably above that for all rural 
relief clients (about 50 percent) and somewhat higher than for all farm oper- 
ators in the State (64 percent). 50 / The clients were of practically the same 

30/ Former figure obtained from survey reported in chapter II and the latter 
from U. S. Census of Agriculture; both figures are for 1934. 



- 63 - 



average age (43 years) as heads of households among Alabama rural relief cases 
in 1934, owners being only 3 years older than tenants. Naturally, those in the 
middle age group, 40-49 years, had the largest families, little difference 
existing between owners and tenants. The average number of persons per family 
was 5.1 for the former and 5.5 for the latter. It is noteworthy that this 
average is slightly above that for rural relief families in 1934, as well as for 
all farm families of the State in 1930. As among the North Carolina group a 
majority of the rehabilitation families had from 3 to 8 members but noticeably 
less had 9 or over (Table 41). 

Again comparable to the North Carolina clients, the formal education of 
this group was at a low level generally; more than 1 in 2 had not progressed be- 
yond the 4th grade and only 5 percent had attended high school (Table 42) . 

Table 41.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, 
and value of household goods, by size of household, standard 
farm plan rehabilitation clients, Alabama Piedmont 
Cotton Section, 1936 



Number of 






: Age of 


Years of residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


Cases 


reported 


: operator: On present: 


In : 


household 


household 


Number 


: Percent 


: in years 


farm : 


county : 


goods 


Total 


489 


100.0 


42.9 


3.9 


13.7 


$64 


1-2 


39 


7.8 


47.1 


5.5 


16.7 


60 


3-4 


147 


30.1 


41.5 


2.9 


12.4 


65 


5-6 


161 


32.9 


41.8 


3.9 


13.0 


66 


7-8 


100 


20.5 


43.8 


5.0 


14.1 


62 


9-10 


32 


6.6 


49.9 


2.4 


17.1 


71 


11 or over 


10 


2.1 


48.4 


4.7 


17.5 


54 



Table 42.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth, and total 
income, by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan re- 
habilitation clients, Alabama Piedmont Cotton Section, 1936 



Schooling : 






: Size of 


Number 








of : 


Cases 


reported 


: household 


of acres 


Assets 


Net worth 


Total 


head 


Number 


: Percent 


(persons) 


in crops 






income 


Total 


489 


100.0 


5.4 


22.7 


364 


200 


196 


Grades completed 
















0-4 


256 


52.4 


5.5 


22.4 


322 


189 


200 


5-7 


166 


33.9 


5.5 


22.7 


373 


189 


194 


8 


41 


8.4 


5.7 


25.7 


465 


255 


197 


9-10 


17 


3.5 


. 4.6 


21.9 


615 


317 


191 


11 - 12 


8 


1.6 


3.9 


19.9 


495 


246 


.136 


13 or over 


1 


.2 


4.0 


21.0 


222 


16 


230 



64 - 



Owners exceeded tenants in years of schooling, since proportionately more of 
them reported 7 or over and fewer, 4 or less. Educational attainments for this 
group were no higher than for all Alabama rural relief clients in 1934. The 
relations between amount of schooling and years on present farm, residence in 
the county, and income appear insignificant. The clients with higher education- 
al attainments had smaller families. 

Mobility 

Seventy percent of the clients had been on the farms they were operating 
at the time of survey for 2 years or less, 9 percent, for 3 or 4 years, 19 
percent, for 15 to 24 years, and only 1 percent, 25 years or more. On the 
whole, they were more mobile than all operators in the State, for less than 
one-half of them had been on the same farm 2 years or less. Likewise they were 
more on the move than the North Carolina group, owing in part perhaps to dis- 
placements caused by the adjustments in cotton farming made by the Agricultural 
Adjustment Administration. Here, as with the tobacco growers, tenants moved 
oftener than owners, 80 percent of the former and 20 percent of the latter having 
been 2 years or less on present farms. Naturally the owners had for a longer 
time mentioned continuous residence in the county, owing, in a small part, to 
their being 3 years older on an average. 

Economic Status 

Almost one-third of these farmers had less than 20 acres in crops, 

exactly two-thirds, 20 to 40 acres, and not even 1 percent had 40 acres or 

more. Possessions were limited in extent to $364, with liabilities covering 

almost one-half of this, leaving a net worth of only $200 per family. Although 

they had slightly fewer crop acres, owners fared much better than tenants, 

having $979 in assets and $621 in net worth, contrasted with $242 and $116 
respectively for the latter group. 

Average income was at a very low level, being not quite $200 per family 
with little difference for owner and tenant groups. The bulk of this came 
from crops; too little for mention came from livestock; and only $15 was de- 
rived from other sources. 

Delta Area, Mississippi 

Almost 95 percent of the Delta Cotton Belt clients were tenants, com- 
pared with 70 percent among all farm operators of Mississippi in 1934. As 
might be expected, these farmers were about the same age as the clients in 
Alabama, with a wider spread between averages for the owner and tenant groups 
(52 and 41 years). Of course, clients 40 to 44 years of age had the largest 
families. The average size of 5.2 persons was about the same as for the Alabama 
group of clients. It was noticeably higher than for all rural- farm households of 
Mississippi as evident from the United States Census for 1930. One-third of the 
total number were 5- and 6-person families; almost as many had 3 or 4 members, 
one-fifth 7 or 8, one-tenth 2 or less, and the remainder 9 or more (Table 43). 
In this unit of study, size of family appears to have no relation to length of 



- 65 - 



residence on the present farm or in the county nor to value of household 
goods; however, the larger households did have better incomes and more crop 
acres per farm than did the smaller ones. 

Heads of households slightly exceeded those in Alabama in their edu- 
cational attainments; that is, fewer of them reported 0-4 grades, and more of 
them had reached, or gone above, the eighth. Completion of the grades to 4, 
5 to 7, and 8 or more was reported by the group in nearly equal proportions 
or by about one-third of the total in each case (Table 44) . Education appears 



Table 43.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value 
of household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation cases, Mississippi Delta Cotton Section, 1936 



Number of 






: Age of 


Years of 


residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


: Cases 


reported 


: operator 


On pres- 


: In : 


household 


household 


: Number 


: Percent 


:in years 


ent farm 


: county : 


goods 


Total 


384 


100.0 


41.9 


3.6 


18.4 


$91 


1-2 


37 


9.6 


42.2 


8.6 


24.9 


91 


3-4 


115 


29.9 


39.2 


2.4 


16.5 


95 


5-6 


129 


33.6 


42.0 


3.9 


18.6 


85 


7-8 


77 


20.1 


44.5 


2.8 


17.5 


95 


9-10 


21 


5.5 


44.7 


3.3 


19.0 


92 


11 or over 


5 


1.3 


48.8 


1.4 


18.2 


98 



Table 44.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth, and total in- 
come, by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation clients, Mississippi Delta Cotton Section, 1936 



Schooling 






: Size of 


Number 








of 


Cases 


reported 


: household 


of acres 


Assets 


Net worth 


Total 


head 


Number 


: Percent 


: (persons) 


in crops 






income 


Total 


380 1/ 


100.0 


5.3 


20.0 


$360 


$148 


$286 


Grades completed: 














0-4 


122 


32.1 


5.5 


20.4 


354 


79 


273 


5-7 


133 


35.0 


5.1 


19.8 


298 


110 


287 


8 


59 


15.5 


5.4 


18.4 


370 


173 


263 


9-10 


39 


10.3 


5.0 


20.1 


368 


243 


315 


11 - 12 


20 


5.3 


5.0 


24.4 


799 


543 


329 


13 or over 


7 


1.8 


4.6 


17.7 


283 


241 


348 



1/ Four clients in the tenant group did not report grades completed. 



- 66 - 



to have at least a slight association with assets, net worth, and total income, 
as indicated by the fact that averages for these factors rise irregularly with 
increase in years of schooling reported. 

Mobility 

These families were even more mobile than the Alabamans and North 
Carolinians. They had an average of 3.6 years on the present farm compared with 
3.9 and 6.5 for the other two States in the order named. Eight in 10 had been 
in the same location for less than 2 years, 1 in 10 had maintained continuous 
residence for 3 or 4 years, almost as many, from 5 to 24 years, and less than 
4 percent, for 26 years or more. Their moves were more frequent than for all 
farm operators in Mississippi. It is of interest that they had an average of 
18 years' continuous residence in the county, whereas the groups in Alabama and 
North Carolina had 30 and 33 years respectively. 

Economic Aspects 

Small farms seem to predominate since more than one-half (56 percent) 
of these clients were cropping less than 20 acres. Operations are on a smaller 
scale than in the other cotton area as indicated by averages of 20 and 23 acres 
respectively. Goods possessed, too, are meager as indicated by only $360 worth 
per family with less than $150 of this free from debt obligations. Tenants had 
considerably less than $100 worth of "clear" goods per family; the few owners 
were omitted from the group. It is of further interest that for one-third of 
the tenants, liabilities completely offset assets; that is, there was nothing 
to go on. Notwithstanding the limited economic resources, the average for the 
year showed slightly higher incomes than in Alabama, $286 compared with $196. 

Arkansas Hill Section of the Cotton Bel t 

Of the Arkansas Hill Section clients, 75 percent were tenants, whereas 60 
percent of all farmers in the State were so classified in 1934. The average age 
of these clients was approximately 40 years, with owners 6 years older than 
tenants. Thus, they were younger than other cotton-section farmers and the 
tobacco growers considered above. A noticeably high proportion, 35 percent of 
the total, were in the age group comprising 30 to 49 years. 

Those 40 to 44 years old had the largest households, with an average of 
almost 7 persons. Size of family for the entire group averaged 5.4 persons, with 
practically no difference for owners and tenants. This was exactly the same 
as for all rural rehabilitation applicants of the State during 1934, which, as 
pointed out previously, was above that for farm families in Arkansas in 1930. 
It is significant that 31 percent of the total number had 3 or 4 members, 30 
percent had 5 or 6, 16 percent had 7 or 8, 10 percent had 1 or 2, and the re- 
mainder comprised 9 persons or more (Table 45). With this group, size of family 
appears to have little or no relation to the factors considered in connection 
with it. 

Educational attainment of the head of the household was somewhat above 
that for the other two groups of farmers of the Cotton Belt as well as for 



- 67 - 



the tobacco growers, indicated by the fact that 37 percent reported the 8th 
grade completed and 14 percent, at least 1 year of high school (Table 46) . This 
was considerably more than for all rural relief clients in the State in 1934. 
Only 21 percent of the total number reported having completed 4 grades or less. 



Table 45.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value 
of household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabilita- 
tion cases, Arkansas Hill Section of the Cotton Belt, 1936 



Number of 






: Age of 


Years of 


residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


: Cases 


reported 


: operator : On pres- 


: In : 


household 


household 


: Number 


: Percent 


: in years 


ent farm 


: county : 


goods 


Total 


380 


100.0 


39.9 


6.7 


30.0 


$31 


1-2 


39 


10.3 


35.1 


10.5 


28.7 


27 


3-4 


118 


31.0 


37.8 


5.6 


28.2 


28 


5-6 


115 


30.3 


40.9 


6.0 


29.3 


31 


7-8 


61 


16.0 


41.7 


6.9 


32.0 


34 


9-10 


33 


8.7 


43.5 


6.9 


35.1 


42 


11 or over 


14 


3.7 


47.0 


10.1 


34.9 


30 



Table 46.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth, and total in- 
come, by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation clients, Arkansas Hill Section of the Cotton Belt, 1936 



Schooling 






: Size of : 


Number 








of 


: Cases 


reported 


: household: 


of acres 


Assets: Net worth 


Total 


head 


: Number 


: Percent 


: (persons) : 


in crops 






income 


Total 


379 1/ 


100.0 


5.4 


23.5 


$539 


$252 


$145 


Grades completed: 














0-4 


80 


21.1 


6.3 


23.8 


423 


153 


150 


5-7 


108 


28.5 


5.1 


22.3 


476 


222 


136 


8 


139 


36.6 


5.4 


24.3 


627 


298 


146 


9-10 


37 


9.8 


4.9 


24.0 


474 


218 


158 


11 - 12 


14 


3.7 


3.9 


23.9 


654 


350 


147 


13 or over 


1 


.3 


5.0 


15.0 


133 


-39 


54 


1/ One client 


in tenant 


group did 


not report 


grades completed. 







Mobility 

The clients in the Hill Section were more stable than those of the Delta 
or Piedmont Areas; that is, noticeably fewer in the group had been on their 
present farms 2 years or less whereas more reported from 5 to 25 or more years' 
continuous residence. They were on a par with the North Carolina tobacco grow- 
ers in this respect. Their moves from farm to farm were more frequent than for 



- 68 - 



all operators in the State, according to the United States Census for 1935. 
Worthy of mention is the fact that these clients had about as many years' 
continuous residence in the county as had the Alabama and North Carolina groups, 
but noticeably more than the Mississippians . 

Economic Aspects 

One in 3 of these clients were operating less than 20 acres in crops; 

3 in 5 had from 20 to 49, and the remaining 6 percent, 40 or more, crop acres. 
Owners and tenants operated farms of about the same size. There was not an 
abundance of possessions among them as indicated by average assets of $539 with 
liabilities of $287 against them, leaving a net worth of $252. The typical 
owner fared much better than the tenant, the former having assets at least 

4 times larger, and net worth 8 times more, than the latter. Incomes were 
significantly low, averaging only $145 per family; three-fourths of the total 
amount was obtained from the sale of crops. 

Illinois Livestock Area of the Corn Belt 

More than 90 percent of the 350 Illinois farmers in the Corn Belt were 
tenants, whereas only 44 percent of all operators in the State were so classi- 
fied in 1934. As would be expected> owners were older than tenants, 8 years on 
an average, but they had practically the same size families. Here again, the 
households were larger than for all rural farm operators of the State in 1930. 
All clients averaged 40 years in age with the highest proportion between 
40 and 44 years. 

More than 2 in 5 of the families had 3 or 4 members; approximately 
1 in 4 comprised 5 or 6 persons, 1 in 7, 2 persons or less, and the remaining 
16 percent, 7 persons or more (Table 47). 



Table 47.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value 
of household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation cases, Illinois livestock area of the Corn Belt, 1936 



Number of 






: Age of 


Years of 


residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


Cases 


reported 


: operator 


On pres- 


: In : 


household 


household 


: Number 


: Percent 


: in years 


ent farm 


: county : 


goods 


Total 


350 


100.0 


40.0- 


4.2 


27.7 


$103 


1-2 


52 


14. 9- 


38.5 


4.0 


28.3 


101 


3-4 


149 


42.6 


38.7 


4.3 


28.1 


108 


5-6 


92 


26.3 


41.2 


3.9 


26.2 


93 


7-8 


39 


11.1 


42.4 


4.6 


28.7 


103 


9-10 


11 


3.1 


43.8 


2.2 


28.4 


110 


11 or over 


7 


2.0 


44.1 


8.1 


27.7 


143 



- 69 - 



A fairly high proportion of the total, 46 percent, reported the eighth 
grade in school as the last year of school completed. Of the 30 percent who 
had accomplished less than this, about one-fourth did not go beyond the fourth 
grade. It seems significant that as many as 24 percent had progressed into 
the high school (Table 48) . 

Table 48.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth, and total in- 



come, by schooling 


of head of 


household, 


standard 


farm plan rehabili- 


tation 


clients, 


Illinois livestock area of the 


Corn Belt, 1936 




Schooling 






Size of : 


Number : 






of 


: Cases 


reported : 


household: 


of acres: 


Assets :Net worth: 


Total 


head 


: Number 


: Percent : 


(persons) : 


in crops: 




income 


Total 


340 1/ 100.0 


4.5 


49.2 


$1,102 $598 


$427 


Grades completed: 












0-4 


26 


7.6 


4.8 


41.9 


1,202 748 


396 


5-7 


77 


22.6 


5.1 


50.3 


1,011 501 


413 


8 


157 


46.2 


4.3 


47.5 


1 , 051 634 


405 


9-10 


40 


11.8 


4.7 


55.8 


1 , 203 436 


524 


11 - 12 


35 


10.3 


3.7 


57.2 


1,000 732 


462 


13 or over 


5 


1.5 


4.8 


44.4 


3,473 505 


488 


1/ Ten clients 


in the tenant group 


did not report grades completed. 










Mobility 








Of these 


clients 


23 percent 


had been 


on farms 


operated at the 


time of 



study for less than 6 months; 43 percent had been there from 6 months to 2 
years. Thus the proportion having been in their present location 2 years or 
less is actually higher than among the Arkansas and North Carolina groups and is 
more than two times as high for all operators in Illinois in 1934. Most of this 
short residence period is accounted for among tenants, who averaged only 3 years 
in the same location in contrast to 17 among owners. The former had lived in 
the county where they lived in 1936 only one-third as long as owners, but much 
of the difference is to be attributed to their being relatively younger. 

Economic Aspects 

Naturally, these clients in the Corn Belt, although they represented 
livestock farming, had larger acreages in crops than those in the cotton and 
tobacco areas. They had almost 50 crop acres, which constituted about one- 
half the number reported on all Illinois farms in 1934. Tenants noticeably 
exceeded owners with respect to total number of acres operated. It is of 
further interest that 1 in 3 of them operated less than 20 acres, and the 
same proportion, 60 or more. 



- 70 - 



In total resources, these farmers possessed $1,102 worth of goods, with 
approximately one-half of this amount covered by obligations; this left a 
net worth of less than $600. Of course, owners far exceeded tenants in assets 
and net worth, primarily because of the possession of land. Both groups had 
about the same amount of livestock, valued at $300 and $337 per farm re- 
spectively. Reporting similar incomes of $427, they secured almost one-half 
of the total from livestock, one-fifth from crops, and the balance from other 
sources . 

Western Corn Belt of Nebraska 

Practically all clients in the Western Corn Belt were tenants, whereas 
less than 50 percent of all farms in the State were tenant-operated in 1934. 31/ 
The average age of the heads of households was 39 years, only one year below a 
similar figure for the Illinois group. The average family size of 4.3 persons 
was practically the same as that for the State in 1930. More than 2 in 5 of 
the families had 3 or 4 members, 3 in 10 had 5 or 6, about 1 in 5 had 2 or less, 
and the remaining 10 percent had 7 or over (Table 49) . 



Table 49.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value 
of household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation cases, Western Corn Belt of Nebraska, 1936 



Number of 






: Age of 


Years of 


residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


: Cases 


reported 


: operator 


On pres- 


: In : 


household 


household 


: Number 


: Percent 


: in years 


ent farm 


: county : 


goods 



Total 


256 


100. 





38. 


9 


8.2 


25 


9 


$154 


1-2 


47 


18 


.4 


32 


.6 


4.9 


23 


2 


128 


3-4 


108 


42 


.2 


38 


.3 


8.0 


25 


4 


154 


5-6 


75 


29 


.3 


41 


.6 


8.8 


27 


3 


171 


7 - 8 ■ 


16 


6 


.3 


44 


.9 


13.8 


32 


.6 


155 


9 - 10 


5 


1 


9 


42. 


4 


17.4 


30 





160 


11 or over 


5 


1. 


9 


46. 


6 


8.2 


16. 





140 



Years of formal schooling among this group were fully as high as for 
the Illinois sample; more than one-half of the total reported completion of the 
eighth grade, about one-fourth had left during high school, and 2 percent had 
attended college (Table 50) . Although household heads who had completed more 
grades had smaller families than did those with less schooling, the amount of 
formal education bears no significant relation to the different economic fac- 
tors observed in the analysis. 



31/ The number of owner cases, only 10 among the total 256, is proportionately 
lower than it would have been with part owners included in the sample. 



Table 50.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth, and total in- 
come, by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation clients, Western Corn Belt of Nebraska, 1936 



Schooling 






; Size of 


Number 








of 


Cases 


reported 


:household 


:of acres 


: Assets 


Net worth 


Total 


head ; 


Number 


Percent 


: (persons) ; 


in crops: 






income 


Total 


245 1/ 


100.0 


4.2 


104.9 


$2,170 


$608 


$531 


Grades completed: 














0-4 


5 


2.0 


4.0 


88.0 


1,055 


194 


548 


5-7 


38 


15.5 


5.0 


104.5 


2,205 


829 


415 


8 


138 


56.3 


4.2 


106.0 


2,184 


526 


525 


9 - 10 


30 


12.3 


3.9 


108.2 


2,674 


861 


734 


11 - 12 


29 


11.9 


4.1 


93.5 


1,716 


463 


503 


13 or over 


5 


2.0 


2.8 


139.6 


2,243 


937 


501 



1/ Eleven clients in tenant group did not report grades completed. 

Mobility 

These operators appeared more stable than those of the other Corn 
Belt area studied. Fewer had been in their 1936 locations 2 years or less and 
noticeably more. 5 years or over. It is significant that almost 10 percent 
had maintained the same residence 15 to 24 years, with as many more reporting 
25 years or more; the majority of these were tenant operators. However, the 
Nebraska group was less stable than all farm operators in the State, as indi- 
cated by the fact that almost 40 percent of the former had been on present 
farms 2 years or less in contrast to 25 percent of the latter in 1934. The 
clients reported shorter continuous residence in the county where they lived 
than the other groups already considered in this survey, except in Mississippi 
which was noticeably low in this respect. 

Economic Aspects 

In keeping with the type of farming which they represent, the clients 
were operating relatively large acreages. On an average, they had 105 acres in 
crops, or approximately one-half of the State average in 1934. This figure 
indicates more than twice as much crop land as for the other Corn Belt area 
studied. It is of interest that a majority of operators reported between 80 
and 160 acres in crops. 

The average family had assets of $2,170, with obligations amounting to 
more than $1,500, or a net worth of $608. They reported incomes averaging 
$531, almost one-half of which was derived from livestock and as much as $83 
from non-farm sources, leaving only $183 from crop sales. Thus they might al- 
most be regarded as livestock farmers of the Corn Belt. 



- 72 - 



Spring Wheat Section of North Dakota 

Approximately 3 in 4 of the cases in North Dakota included in the study 
were tenants, whereas 39 percent of all farm operators in the State were so 
classified in .1934. 32/ The heads of households were slightly older than 
the Nebraska clients, and the average for owners was 11 years above that for 
tenants. One-third of the total were between 25 and 34, and one-fourth between 
35 and 44, years of age. The largest families were found among clients 50 to 59 
years old. 

Families were practically the same in average size as for all on farms 
in the State in 1930. Two-thirds of them had from 3 to 6 members, fewer than 
one-tenth had 2 or less, more than one-tenth, 7 or 8, and the remaining 12.5 
percent, 9 or more (Table 51). 

Schooling for heads of households was as advanced as for the Nebraska 
clients; almost one-half reported having completed eight grades, less than one- 
fifth, 9 to 12 grades, and a few had gone to college (Table 52). 

Mobility 

Contrary to what might be expected, these farmers were less on the move 
than any of the others previously reported. In fact, they seemed to be about 
as stable as all farm operators in North Dakota, according to the United States 
Census for 1935. A large majority had for more than 5 years been on the farms 
they were operating at the time of the survey; almost one-third reported as much 
as 15, and one-sixth more than 25, years' continuous residence. The figures 
indicate that tenants as well as owners were fairly stable, two-fifths of the 
former group having been on the same farms 5 to 14 years and one-fifth, 15 
years or over. This group was stable also in continuous county residence, as 
indicated by an average of 23 years among all of them. 

Economic Aspects 

Naturally, farms were large in this area; they averaged 216 crop acres, 
owners having 203 compared to 222 for tenants. This average is about four-fifths 
as high as for the State in 1934, including land reported "crop failure." 
Only 6 percent of all clients had less than 80 acres in crops, whereas 25 
percent had from 80 to 160, and 69 percent, 160 or more crop acres. 

Although these families had possessions valued at relatively large 
amounts (nearly $3,000 on an average) they had also heavy liabilities which 
reduced net worth to less than $500. The situation was better for owners 
than tenants, the former having $7,135 in assets and $1,696 net worth compared 
to $1,674 and $89 respectively for the latter. 



32 / If the 91 part-owners reported in the sample had been included as owners, 
in the analysis, the proportion of tenants would have been almost 2 in 3 
among all clients. 



- 73 - 



Table 51.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value 
of household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation cases, Spring Wheat Section of North Dakota, 1936 



Number of : 






; AgG Of 


Ypa n f* 

J. cai O U 1 


rpc i Hpn f^P ' 

1 v7 O X v.1 V> HuC • 


Value of 


persons per : 


Cases 


I fc? [JU L L fcJU. 




On nrp<? 

. \Jll u 1 c O 


Tn 




household : 


Number 


; Percent 


; in years 


:ent farm 


: county : 


goods 


Total 




272 


100.0 


41.3 


11.8 


23.0 


$184 


1 - 


2 


26 


9.6 


41.6 


11.2 


24.2 


134 


3 - 


4 


98 


36.0 


38.3 


10.6 


24.1 


187 


5 - 


6 


83" 


30.5 


41.2 


11.8 


21.8 


211 


7 - 


8 


31 


11.4 


45.3 


12.9 


23.1 


172 


9 - 


10 


24 


8.8 


44.7 


15.3 


20.6 


167 


11 or 


over 


10 


3.7 


51.8 


11.4 


23.3 


130 



Table 52.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth and total in- 
come, by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation clients in the Dakota Spring Wheat Section, 1936 



Schooling 






: Size of 


Number 








of 


Cases 


reported 


: household 


of 


acres 


Assets 


Net worth: 


Total 


head 


Number 


: Percent 


: (persons ) 


in 


crops 






income 


Total 


264 1/ 


100.0 


5.2 




216 


$2 . 966 


$ 473 


$508 


Grades completed: 
















0-4 


27 


10.3 


6.1 




175 


2,953 


296 


546 


5-7 


56 


. 21.2 


5.5 




219 


3,222 


513 


521 


8 


131 


49.6 


5.3 




225 


2,875 


465 


473 


9-10 


24 


9.1 


4.3 




199 


2,203 


119 


575 


11 - 12 


22 


8.3 


4.6 




217 


3,741 


1,038 


547 


13 or over 


4 


1.5 


5.0 




274 


2,764 


965 


611 



1/ Eight clients in tenant group did not report grades completed. 

An average income of $508 was reported, the figure for tenants being 
approximately $25 above that for owners. Roughly, two-fifths of the total was 
from crops, more than one- fourth from livestock, and the remainder from other 
sources including drought relief, Government benefit payments, work off the 
farm, and pensions. 

Poultry-Cash Grain-Fruit Farming;, Orego n 

Approximately one-half of the operators in this group were tenants com- 
pared with less than one-fourth among all farmers in the State in 1934. They 
were older than those of other groups of the survey, as indicated by an average 



- 74 - 



age of 46 years. Almost 60 percent of the total were between 35 and 54 years 
of age, 22 percent were 55 years old or over, and the remaining 18 percent were 
below the age of 30. 

The typical family comprised 4.4 persons, or 0.5 above the average size 
for all rural farm households of the State in 1930. Almost one-fourth of the 
families had 1 or 2 members, more than one-third had 3 or 4, nearly one-fourth 
had 5 or 6, and the others, 7 or more (Table 53). 

As with the Nebraskans, these clients stand relatively high in their 
educational attainments, as evidenced by the fact that 53 percent of the total 
reported completing the eighth grade; almost 30 percent had entered high school; 
and 5 percent had had at least some college training (Table 54) . 

Mobility 

Here again, the rehabilitation program apparently reached the less stable 

farmers, as indicated by the fact that 3 in 4, compared to 1 in 3 for the entire 
State in 1934 had been on the same farms for less than 4 years. Only 7 percent 
reported continuous residence for 5 to 14 years and 9 percent, for 15 years or 
more, in contrast to 32 percent and 28 percent respectively for the entire 
State. Tenants were far more mobile than owners. The entire group seems also 
to have been "on the move" from county to county, as well as farm to farm, as 
indicated by an average of less than 12 years in the county of residence, com- 
pared to a far higher one for other units of this survey. 

Economic Aspects 

Naturally farms in this region were not as large as in the North Dakota, 
Nebraska, and Illinois areas, because of the prevalence of fruit and poultry 
raising as well as some small grain. They were more nearly in line with those 
of the Cotton Belt and tobacco sections in crop land, having only 21 acres thus 
cultivated whereas the State average in 1934 was 95 acres with one-half reported 
as crop failure. Owners and tenants had practically the same acreages in crops. 
It is noteworthy that two-thirds of all the clients had less than 20 crop acres 
while 4 farms had more than 240= 

These families had a fair outlay of possessions as indicated by more than 
13,100 in assets and less than 51,600 liabilities; the resulting net figure was 
$1,521. The averages were noticeably higher for owners than for tenants, due 
in part to the inclusion of several who seemed to be fairly well situated. 
Assets for the former were almost 6 times, and net worth more than 3 times, as 
large as for the latter. Notwithstanding the apparent high net worth of more 
than $1,500 for all of these clients, at least one-half of them had under 
$1,000. 

Reported income averaging $815 was approximately $340 higher for owners 
than for tenants. One-fifth of the total amount was from crops, more than two- 
fifths from livestock, and the remainder from other sources. This distribution 
was similar for the two tenure groups. Although the average income was high, 
it is significant that for a considerable number of the families it was rela- 



- 75 « 



Table 53.- Age of operator, years on present farm and in county, and value 
of household goods, by size of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 
tation cases, Oregon Cash Grain-Fruit-Poultry Section, 1936 



Number of 






: Age of 


Years of 


residence : 


Value of 


persons per 


: Cases 


reported 


: operator 


:0n pres- 


: In : 


household 


household 


; Number 


: Percent 


: in years 


ent farm 


: county : 


goods 


Total 




322 


100.0 


45.6 


4.2 


11 .6 


$231 


1 - 


2 


76 


23.6 


48.7 


4.3 


11.1 


231 


3 - 


4 


117 


36.3 


44.4 


4.2 


11.8 


226 


5 - 


6 


77 


23.9 


44.0 


5.0 


12.4 


239 


7 - 


8 


33 


10.3 


46.2 


2.5 


10.7 


229 


9 - 


10 


18 


5.6 


45.1 


3.9 


10.9 


230 


11 or 


over 


1 


.3 


46.0 


.0 


1.0 


111 



Table 54.- Size of household, crop acres, assets, net worth and total in- 
come, by schooling of head of household, standard farm plan rehabili- 



tation clients, Ore^ 


Son Cash 


Grain-Fruit 


-Poultry 


Farm Section, 


1936 


Schooling 






: Size of : 


Number : 








of 


: Cases reported 


: household: 


of acres: 


Assets 


:Net worth: Total 


head 


: Number : 


Percent 


: (persons) : 


in crops: 






: income 


Total 


305 1/ 


100.0 


4.4 


21.1 


$3,113 


$1,521 


$ 815 


Grades completed: 














0-4 


10 


3.5 


4.6 


10.4 


2,037 


1,165 


452 


5-7 


28 


9.2 


5.0 


27.4 


4,565 


1,797 


1,041 


8 


162 


53.1 


4.2 


23.5 


2,663 


1,427 


772 


9-10 


48 


15.7 


4.8 


19.2 


3,282 


1,380 


779 


11 - 12 


42 


13.8 


4.2 


14.3 


3,233 


1,986 


907 


13 or over 


15 


4.9 


4.4 


16.3 


5,099 


1,406 


959 


1/ Ten clients 


in the owner group 


and 7 in the tenant 


group 


did not 


report 



grades completed. 



tively small; 10 percent were below the $100 level, and 31 percent had incomes 
ranging from only $100 to $499. The high average is due in part to the in- 
clusion of a number of cases for which considerably more than $1,000 was report- 
ed. 

Summary of Findings 

Although it represents a wide variety of farming types and geographic 
conditions, this survey permits several generalizations pertaining to the social 
characteristics and economic status of standard farm plan families under the 
rural rehabilitation program. 



- 76 - 



Among these is the fact that the largest proportion of the clients 
are tenants and that their average ages are from 4 to 12 years younger than 
owners. Concurrently they have had less experience at farming for themselves. 
This is in line with the situation generally and indicates that the selection 
of clients for rehabilitation has not been directed toward any specific age 
group. There is no significant difference in the average number of persons per 
household among owners and tenants and generally the families are as large if 
not larger than those on all farms in the respective. States. This indicates 
that the number of dependents had due consideration in the selection. 

Formal schooling of the head of the household appears to have had little 
influence on, or association with, most other factors observed in the analysis. 
This is due perhaps to the fact that rehabilitation clients represent a relative- 
ly low economic stratum of farmers, especially in the South, and to the prob- 
ability that some of the existing relations were not disclosed by the small 
number of cases in each sample. There is the indication of a positive relation 
of education to total income in some of the areas as well as a negative one to 
size of family in most of them. 

Financial status of these families varies widely according to different 
farming sections; for example, those in the Mississippi Delta Area had a net 
worth of only $148 compared to more than $1,500 among the poultry-cash grain- 
fruit farmers of Oregon. In this respect, there is almost as wide a fluctuation 
between owners and tenants in some areas as between the operators of either or 
both tenure classes by separate areas. 

Ordinarily, owners and tenants had about the same acreages in crops 
and their average income from these was not widely different. However, the 
former obtained considerably more income from livestock and somewhat more from 
other sources than did the latter. It is significant that clients in all areas 
received part of their earnings from non-farm sources; where the income was 
relatively high, as in the Corn Belt and the Oregon cash grain-poultry section, 
a large percentage of the total came from these supplementary channels. The 
latter areas, as would be expected, received proportionately more livestock than 
did the others. 

The clients were less stable in continuous residence on the farms of 
tenure at the time of study than is characteristic of all operators in their 
respective States. Mobility of tenants was noticeably higher than of owners 
with wide variation by farm-type areas, owing, of course, to different practices 
and conditions of leasing as well as the seriousness of the enonomic situation 
which caused the client to turn to public agencies for aid. Generally, the 
rehabilitation program in these areas, as well as in other regions reported 
on previously, encompasses only small farmers, that is, those whose resources are 
limited, who were most severely affected by the depression and other agricultural 
maladjustments, and who, therefore, had been more on the move in comparison with 
others . 



- 77 - 



Chapter VII 

SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS OF THE SURVEYS 

Notwithstanding their having been conducted on widely different bases, 
the surveys here reported bring to a focus important points of emphasis for 
use in guiding the rehabilitation program. Or at least they bring to attention 
important points for further consideration in connection with such work. At- 
tention has already been directed to the most significant findings and inferen- 
ces for the different units of study. Mainly, these have been viewed from the 
angle of the region, State, or type of farming area for which they are most 
representative. Here, they are reviewed briefly in their bearing on, or 
relation to, policies and procedures of rural rehabilitation. 

As would be expected, practically all of the rehabilitation clients 
are bona fide farmers. Only a few lived in villages or towns when they applied 
for loans and most of them had had farm experience; these were, at least 
temporarily, not on farms because of unusual circumstances such as drought, 
foreclosure, or lack of capital to provide needed equipment. In this respect 
they were similar to those who lived in the open country. 

Tenure Status 

A large proportion of the applicants were tenants, noticeably exceeding 
the percentages represented in the total farm population. This was due to 
several factors. Owners were likely to have obtained at least some credit 
from other sources. Also, they had the use of livestock, equipment, and land - 
although these were burdened with debt - while tenants had no land and seldom 
any of the other resources. In some instances owners had their real estate, 
buildings, and even livestock and equipment so heavily mortgaged as to cause 
them to be evicted from their farms or thrown into the tenant classification. 
At any rate, the program reached tenants more frequently than owners with loans 
for the provision of necessary working capital. 

Possibly the preferential selection of tenants (and to a lesser extent 
owners) was allowed to overshadow the dire need among farm laborers. Generally 
the farm laborer is not reached by the program in proportion to his representa- 
tion in agriculture. Of course, he could not be under the terms whereby loans 
were granted. Many farm laborers who were aided in this way at the beginning 
had to be dropped because "they could not make it." But the fact that they con- 
stitute a significant segment of the most underprivileged among our farm popu- 
lation is sufficient reason for careful consideration of the families of this 
group which obviously has least of all to offer as security. 

Mobility 

In general, the clients were noticeably mobile. That is, they had spent 
fewer years on the farms they were operating at time of application for aid 
than was characteristic of all farmers in their States or regions. This is 
accounted for by the fact that a large proportion of the tenants and many of 
the owners may have been "on the move" during recent years because of unusual 
emergencies, accentuating a significant trend in our national and agricultural 



- 78 - 



economy over a period of 30 to 60 years. The village and town or city residents 
included in the program were more migratory than the others. 

Furthermore, the clients showed a marked degree of mobility in occupa- 
tional and tenure status as indicated by the fact that many had shifted from 
farming to other trades and types of employment as well as making interchanges 
between the status of owner, tenant, cropper, and laborer on the so-called 
agricultural ladder. 

Family Composition 

For the most part, the groups were made up of middle-aged farmers whose 
families were larger than average for the farm population in their respective 
States or regions. This is in accord with the greater likelihood of large 
families being in need; they were perhaps favored, although not always con- 
sciously, in an effort to aid more people or to some extent to grant them 
loans, partially on the grounds that children would contribute labor in farming. 
In other words, the program was directed at rehabilitation of the family as well 
a_ , or rather than, the farm. 

In respect to age, the studies tend to emphasize the question of whether 
greater attention can be directed to younger men in the program. Of course, 
the noticeably low proportions of those below 30, and more particularly below 
25, years of age are accounted for by the facts that younger men generally lack 
farm experience and have not enough possessions to advance security for the 
credit that might be extended. This, however, tends to evade the issue of what 
can be done to assist young people who are potentially qualified as farmers to 
establish homes of their own. Some of these are already married and starting 
tc rear families, and others doubtless would be if opportunities to farm were 
made available to them. 

Education 

In most instances the formal education of the group was at a relatively 
low level, with wide variation by States and/or types of farming areas. Gener- 
ally, the grade attained in school appeared to be only insignificantly related 
to available resources, although this nay be due in part to the fact that the 
clients represent a segment of families at or below the margin, economically. 

Some attention seems to have been paid to formal education in the an- 
alysis of family capabilities and to that extent in the actual selection of 
the families which were aided. This is a desirable consideration so long as 
the amount of schooling attained is used as a starting point for further edu- 
cation of an informal type in connection with possible attainment of the desired 
objectives in rehabilitation. 

Family Livin g 

As would be expected, living facilities in the home, such as electricity 
and piped-in water, were far less common among these families than was character- 
istic for all farmers in the respective States or regions. Also, inadequate 
housing was indicated, in comparison with data available for similar areas. 
Families in urgent need, as these were, make it almost necessary that rehabili- 



- 79 - 



tation programs provide for alleviation of the major dif f iciencies in housing. 

Estimates, when standard farm plans were drawn up, showed less them 
moderate anticipated standards of living. The average cash expenses estimated 
for families of 4 to 5 persons were seldom above $325 per year., even though 
many of the families already had heavy annual household obligations. However, 
the low estimated cash expenditures were offset by the largely accomplished 
aim and objective of an adequate food supply produced at home. To the extent 
that this was done, cash income from farm operations was made to provide more 
of the necessities of family living which could not be produced on the farm, 
pay operating costs, provide income-producing livestock and equipment, and meet 
the loan obligations punctually. 

Furthermore, it should be recognized that the cost-of-living data were 
taken from records or forms that were prepared before the elements of family 
living could be given the desired attention in the rehabilitation program. 
Since then, there has been a growing emphasis on these aspects. Home super- 
visors in cooperation with Rural Rehabilitation supervisors are making reason- 
ably sure that family problems are encompassed in the combined farm-and-home plan 
and that steps will be taken to meet them. 

For example, provision is made for seeds and fertilizer for the garden, 
maintenance of a family cow, proper processing and storing of foods, and ef- 
fective spending of the cash income to provide the greatest possible quantity of 
income-producing goods and services; finally, attention is being directed to 
more efficient uses of the goods as well as the social facilities that are a- 
vailable. Thus, plans are gradually being more closely drawn to the anticipated 
needs of individual families and in many instances they are now being supple- 
mented with home and farm accounts that will serve as a still further basis for 
next year's operations and possible accomplishments. 

For the most part the families represent farm population on economic 
levels that are below the minimum for decent standards of living. Meager 
assets and net worth as well as a low income for the year indicate marked im- 
poverishment among them. This points to a concerted attempt on the part of 
those in charge of rehabilitation to make the program reach that great segment 
of disadvantaged or underprivileged farm families, probably one-third of the 
total in the United States; for in 1929, according to the United States Census, 
1,800,000 had gross returns of less than $600 in total value of products sold, 
traded, or used from the farm. 

Some of the families of the studies were above this level, even in the years 
1934-36 during the depression. Although the selection of such families can 
be justified on grounds that they were living in the more profitable farming 
sections, along with the fact that may of them had bought farms or equipment 
at inflated values since depreciated and others were the victims of drought or 
other adverse circumstances, it indicates a likelihood that the program may 
perhaps veer in the direction of neglecting too many families at the extremely 
low levels for preferences among those above them. The latter generally are 
better prospects for meeting loan obligations and more responsive to super- 
vision, but they may be less in need than some of the others. 



- 80 - 



Need for Further Analysis 

These considerations call to attention the apparent lack of family- 
selection criteria, in addition to those indicating economic status or accom- 
plishments. It would be revealing to know more about the clients and their 
families than that they possessed a certain amount of assets, were rated cap- 
able of handling capital advances, or even that they had completed a specific 
year in school. Measurements of this type had to suffice at the outset because 
of the speed with which the program was necessarily put into action. However, 
little record has been made as to why certain families were rejected or what 
disposal was made of those that were not aided. It is important to know the 
proportion of applicants that were not accepted in all States and regions with 
definite reasons for non-inclusion. 

Furthermore, the program has now been in operation long enough to reveal 
that many families selected have failed in the process of carrying out their 
program. Who are these families? What are their characteristics? In what 
ways do they differ from those that are making good or that give all good promise 
of doing so? Once a family fails, what further arrangements are made for meet- 
ing its needs? How is it regarded by its neighbors in the local community? 
These and similar questions are aspects that should have further study or con- 
sideration from the angle of family selection in the effort to reach the largest 
possible number of qualified, worthy families at the lowest levels of living. 



Appendix 



SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 

The following tables are presented primarily to make possible more de- 
tailed comparisons among the standard farm plan rehabilitation clients by 
States. Because the units were planned, and to a large extent conducted, 
separately, the figures are not comparable in all respects from region to re- 
gion; nor are they in exact accord with those for the two States for which the 
studies were made earlier, Alabama and Arkansas. 

As far as possible the same major items are presented and in most in- 
stances their classifications will permit definite comparison from State to 
State regardless of region. For Table C it should be recalled that the cases 
were selected to represent a certain type of farm rather than a State and to 
that extent they may be non-representative on a State basis. 



- 82 - 



Table A.- Percentage distribution figures and averages for 
comparisons among the States in Region II, 1935 

: States 



I tem : Michigan : Wisconsin : Minnesota 

Number of cases 3,736 3,259 4,575 

Tenure 

Percentages : 

Owners 52.0 43.3 29.3 

Share renters 24.4 15.3 37.8 

Cash renters 13.1 20.0 - 13.7 

Farm laborers 7.7 14.3 14.4 

Non-farm 2.8 7.1 4.8 

Residence of client at time 
of referral 
Percentages : 

Farm 95.1 84.9 93.7 

Open country, non-farm 3.5 8.8 .7 

Village .6 3.7 3.5 

Town or city .8 2.6 2.1 

Age of client (in years) 
Percentages : 

24 or less 7.0 7.7 6.8 

25 - 29 10.2 14.4 17.4 
30-34 11.9 15.4 16.5 
35-39 13.2 15.2 14.9 
40 - 44 15.3 15.3 14.8 
45-49 13.8 12.5 11.8 
50 - 54 11.8 9.5 8.7 
55 - 59 8.0 5.8 4.8 
60 or more 8.8 4.2 4.3 

Size of household (in persons) 
Percentages : 

1-2 17.1 13.0 16.4 

3-4 34.1 35.3 37.3 

5-6 27.9 29.3 26.4 

7-8 13.6 14.7 13.2 

9-10 5.5 5.6 5.0 

11 or more 1.8 2.1 1.7 



- 83 - 



Table A.- (Continued) 



Item 



Michigan 



States 



Wisconsin 



Minnesota 



Average number of children 
per family: 
All ages 
Under 15 
15 or over 
Sons 16 or over 



2.6 
1.9 
.7 
.4 



2.8 
2.2 
.6 
.3 



2.4 
1.8 
.6 
.3 



Families with children of 
specified ages 1/ 
Percentages : 
15 - 19 years 
20 - 29 years 

General relief 
Percentages : 
Never on rolls 
On rolls at some time 
On rolls past year 



34.5 
15.6 



39.6 
60.4 
48.2 



28.0 
13.2 



43.5 
56.5 
34.2 



25.8 
11.7 



43.9 
56.1 
37.2 



Estimated cash living costs 
for first year under farm plan 
Percentages : 

Less than $150 2.9 

$150 - 249 22.5 

$250 - 349 34.7 

$350 - 449 23.3 

$450 - 549 10.1 

$550 - 649 3.7 

$650 or more 2.8 



4.5 
35.9 
35.8 
15.1 
5.7 
2.0 
1.0 



7.7 
32.2 
31.1 
16.6 
7.5 
2.9 
2.0 



Size of farm (in crop acres) 2/ 
Percentages 
Less than 20 



20 - 
40 - 
60 - 
80 - 



39 
59 
79 
119 



120 - 159 
160 or more 



12.6 
24.7 
23.8 
20.8 
14.0 
3.0 
1.1 



16.7 
29.6 
22.4 
14.9 
11.7 
3.7 
1.0 



9.2 
17.3 
14.1 
12.6 
14.3 
15.8 
16.7 



« 



■ 84 - 



Table A.- (Continued) 



States 



Item j_ Michigan : W isconsin : Minnesota 

Average crop acres per farm 2/ 54.3 49.2 93.8 

Owners 47.6 42.4 62.0 

Share renters 68.8 68.2 127.6 

Cash renters 53.7 49.5 68.6 

Average net worth $1,317 $1,087 $ 786 

Assets, average 2,175 2,332 1,934 

Liabilities, average 858 1,145 1,148 

Estimated cash income: 

Less than $500 4.0 4.2 4.9 

$ 500 - 999 54.3 55.1 44.3 

$1,000-1,499 29.1 28.5 30.2 

$1,500 - 1,999 8.5 9.0 12.8 

$2,000 - 2,499 2.1 2.2 4.7 

$2,500 or more 2.0 1.0 3.1 

Average 2/ $ 997 $ 959 $ 1,125 

Owners 1,017 934 1,037 

Share renters 898 947 1,224 

Cash renters 1,102 1,023 1,034 

Estimated farm operation 

expense 302 356 429 

Estimated cash living costs 346 295 308 

Balance for other uses 349 308 388 



1/ Refers to percentages of total number of families with one or more children 
in age group indicated. 

2/ Averages for these items are for clients classified as owner, share renter, 
or cash renter at time of application; that is, farm laborers and non-farmers 
were excluded from these tabulations. 



85 - 



Table B.- Percentage distribution figures and averages for 
comparisons among the three States in Region X, 1935 

. •- . - : :_ States 



Item : Colorado : W yo ming Montana 

Number of cases 2,151 1,084 1,404 

Tenure 

Percentages: 

Owners 26.6 57.5 42.8 

Share renters 61.8 25.1 42.7 

Cash renters 11.3 16.3 14.0 

Laborers .3 1.1 .5 

Years of residence on farm 
occupied at time of referral 

Percentages: ; 

Less than 4 -. 63.6 51.7 50.7 

4-10 19.5 23.0 25.8 

11 - 20 10.4 16.6 10.9 

20 or more 6.5 8.7 12.6 

Years of continuous residence 
in same county 

Percentages: .' 

Less than 4 18.0 21.0 12.0 

4-10 26.0 23.0 22.0 

11-20 24.0 27.0 22.0 

20 or more 32.0 29.0 44.0 

Years of experience at farming 

Percentages : 

Less than 4 12.5 17.2 16.5 

4-10 29.0 28.6 29.9 

11-20 29.5 30.3 27.8 

20 or more 29.0 23.9 25.8 

Age of client (in years) 
Percentages : 

Less than 30 16.7 15.1 17.6 

30-39 26.9 28.4 27.2 

40-49 28.0 30.1 30.0 

50-59 21.0 18.9 19.2 

60 or more 7.4 7.5 6.0 



- 86 - 



Table B.- (Continued) 



States 



Item . ... ... ;. C olorado ; Wyoming; ; Montana 



Size of household (in persons) 
Percentages : 

1-2 18.4 ;J1 ' 17.2 15.7 

3 - 4 36.4 35.2 34.9 

5 - 6 26.5 29.9 27.0 

7-8 13.4 12.2 14.0 

f' ? 9 or more 5.3 5.5 8.4 

School grades completed 
by client 
Percentages : 

Less than 8 18.1 .20.2 28.2 

\\ ' 8 - 11 67.5 ; ; i \ - 65.8 60.5 

F [ 12-15 12.7 12.9 9.9 

16 or more 1,7 1,1 1,4 

Size of farm (in crop acres) 
Percentages : 
Irrigated 

0-14 15.4 6.3 16.1 

15-34 22.3 15.4 20.5 

f 35 - 54 14.6 . ... _ 26.6 17,0 

55 - 74 14.7 22.6 14.7 

75 - 94 9.4 11.2 10.7 

95 or more 23.6 17.9 21.0 

Non-irrigated 

0-74 27.2 43.8 32.8 

75 - 154 33.3 33.9 29.9 

155 - 234 21.2 13.2 18.1 

235 - 474 16.3 8.0 16.9 

475 or more 2.0 1.1 2.3 

Average number of acres: 

Total 95 86 110 

Owners 89 84 108 

Share renters 105 106 133 

Cash renters 51 64 57 

Farm laborers - 23 23 



Table B.- (Continued) 



Item 



Average size of farm 
(total acres) 
Owners 

Share renters 
Cash renters 
Farm laborers 

Livestock on farms (average 
in animal units) : 
Total 
Owners 

Share renters 
Cash renters 
Farm laborers 

Gross income per farm: 
Total 
Owners 

Share renters 
Cash renters 
Farm laborers 



States 

Colorad o : Wyoming : Montana 



217 418 488 

237 459 580 

211 343 420 

193 414 341 

75 46 

9.8 13.5 12.4 

12.5 15.7 15.4 

8.7 10.4 8.7 

9.0 11.9 8.8 

1.0 4.3 3.0 

$563 $591 $744 

690 629 814 

522 567 670 

491 501 690 

120 395 469 



- 88 - 



Table C . - Percentage distribution figures and averages for 
comparisons among standard farm plan rural rehabilitation 
clients in selected areas representing certain types 
of farming in eight States, 1936 



States 



Item 



: North Carolina: Alabama : M ississipp i; Ark ansa s 



Number of cases 



307 



489 



384 



380 



Tenure 

Percentages 



Owners 


18.6 


16 


.6 


5 


.9 


24.5 


Tenants 


81 .4 


83. 


.4 


94 


. 1 


75.5 


Years of residence on farm 














occiini e>d at time of referral 














Percentages' 














2 or less 


52. 1 


69. 


4 


78. 


.4 


52.9 


3 - 4 


17.6 


9, 


4 


9. 


6 


13.7 


5 - 14 


16.0 


13 


9 


5 


2 


15.5 


15 - 24 


6.2 


5. 


9 


2. 


.9 


9.5 


25 or more 


8.1 


1. 


4 


3. 


9 


8.4 


Avpra? p numher of vesrs* 














Tnta 1 


6 . 5 


3 


. 9 


3 


.6 


6.7 


flwri p t*c; 


16 . 1 


8. 


.7 


24 


,8 


13.1 


1 tJIlCtil to 


5.3 


2 


, 9 


2 


,3 


4.7 


leal O Ul OUH tlilUUUD A^O-LUdlOC 














in county 














Average : 














Total 


32.7 


30 


.2 


18, 


.4 


30.0 


Owners 


39.8 


35 


.7 


49. 


,8 


37.5 


Tenants 


31 .0 


29 


.1 


16 


,4 


27.6 


Age of client (in years) 














Percentages : 














Under 25 


3.6 


4. 


,5 


5, 


.2 


6.1 


25 - 29 


11.4 


9. 


,6 


14. 


3 


12.9 


30 - 34 


13.7 


17, 


,0 


12 


.0 


17.1 


35 - 39 


16.3 


16 


.4 


13. 


3 


18.4 


40 - 44 


17.6 


10 


.4 


13. 


.0 


11.8 


45 - 49 


10.7 


12. 


,5 


15. 


4 


12.9 


50 - 54 


8.5 


9, 


2 


9. 


9 


7.9 


55 - 59 


8.1 


8. 


6 


7. 


8 


7.4 


60 or more 


10.1 


11. 


8 


9. 


1 


5.5 



- 89 - 



Table C- (continued) 



States 



Item 



:North Car olina: Alabama :Mississippi : Arkansas 



Average age of client 
( in years ) : 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



42.4 
46.5 
41.4 



42.9 
46.5 
42.2 



41.9 
52.1 
41.3 



39.9 
44.5 
38.4 



Size of household (in persons ] 
Percentages : 
1-2 
3-4 
5-6 
7-8 
9-10 
11 or more 



5.9 
20.2 
30.0 
26.7 
10.7 

6.5 



7.8 
30.1 
32.9 
20.5 
6.6 
2.1 



9.6 
29.9 
33.6 
20.1 
5.5 
1.3 



10.3 
31.0 
30.3 
16.0 
8.7 
3.7 



Average size (in persons 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



6.2 
6.2 
6 



5.4 
5.1 
5.5 



5.3 
4.7 
5.3 



5.4 
5.3 
5.4 



School grades completed by client 
Percentages : 

0-4 54.9 

5-7 34.2 

8 6.3 

9-12 4.3 

13 or more .3 



52.4 
33.9 
8.4 
5.1 
.2 



32.1 
35.0 
15.5 
15.6 
1.8 



21.1 
28.5 
36.6 
13.5 
.3 



Size of farm (in crop acres) 
Percentages : 
Less than 20 
20 - 39 
40 - 59 
60 or more 



70.4 
26.7 
2.6 
.3 



31.5 
66.7 
1.6 
.2 



56.3 
40.6 
3.1 
.0 



33.9 
60.5 
5.0 
.6 



Average number of acres 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



16.8 
18.0 
16.5 



22.7 
21.2 
23.0 



20.0 
21.4 
20.1 



23.5 
24.5 
23.3 



Net worth 
Percentages : 
Less than $500 
$ fOO - 999 
$1,000 - 1,499 
$1,500 - 1,999 
$2,000 or over 



74.3 
15.6 
3.6 
2.3 
4.2 



90.2 
6.1 
3.7 
.0 
.0 



89.5 
7.0 
2.6 
.3 
.6 



81.3 
11.3 
5.0 
1.1 
1.3 



- 90 



Table C .- (continued) 



Item 




States 




:North Carolina: 


Alabama 


: Mississippi 


: Arkansas 


Average net worth: 










Total 


$ 461 


$200 


$ 148 


$252 


Owners 


1,385 


621 


1,191 


763 


Tenants 


250 


116 


81 


87 


Family income 










Percentages: 










Less than $100 


2.9 


10 .2 


6.0 


42.6 


$ 100 - 199 


13.4 


48.3 


28.4 


33.7 


$ 200 - 299 


23.8 


27.6 


32.5 


15.8 


$ 300 - 399 


17 . 9 


10.8 


15.4 


5.0 


$ 400 - 499 


12.7 


2.7 


7.0 


1.3 


$ 500 - 599 


9.8 


.0 


5.5 


.5 


$ 600 - 799 


9.4 


.4 


2.3 


.8 


$ 800 - 999 


5.9 


.0 


2.9 


.3 


$1,000 or more 


4.2 


.0 


.0 


.0 


Average income: 










Total 


$426 


$196 


$285 


$145 


Crops 


368 


179 


249 


116 


Livestock 


23 


2 


9 


11 


Other sources 


35 


15 


27 


18 


Owners 


509 


194 


343 


176 


Crops 


436 


174 


294 


128 


Livestock 


28 


1 


25 


22 


Other sources 


45 


19 


24 


26 


Tenants 


407 


197 


283 


135 


Crops 


352 


181 


248 


112 


Livestock 


22 


2 


8 


8 


Other sources 


33 


14 


27 


15 



- 91 - 



Table C- (continued) 



States 



Item 



Illinois : Nebraska : North Dakota : Oregon 



Number of cases 



350 



256 



272 



322 



Tenure 

Percentages : 
Owners 
Tenants 



7.4 
92.6 



3.9 
96.1 



23.2 
76.8 



49.1 
50.9 



Years of residence on farm 
occupied at time of referral 
Percentages : 
2 or less 
3-4 
5 - 14 
15 - 24 
25 or more 



66.2 
13.4 
10.9 
6.9 
2.6 



39.4 
14.8 
27.4 
9.4 
9.0 



16-5 
14.3 
37.9 
15.1 
16.2 



64.6 
9.6 

16.8 
6.8 

2.2 



Average number of years: 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



4.2 
16.6 
3.1 



8.2 
15.5 
7.9 



11.8 
20.2 
9.2 



4.2 
6.8 
1.7 



Years of continuous residence 
in county 
Averages : 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



27.7 
41.0 
26.7 



25.9 
40.3 
25.3 



23.0 
26.4 
21.9 



11.6 
13.7 
9.6 



Age of client (in years) 
Percentages : 
Under 25 



25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
55 
60 



- 29 

- 34 

- 39 

- 44 

- 49 

- 54 

- 59 

or more 



8.3 
14.3 
12.6 
12.3 
18.3 
12.9 
9.1 
7.7 
4.5 



8.2 
19.1 
12.1 
13.7 
16.0 
11.7 
10.2 
4.3 
4.7 



2.6 
16.9 
16.5 
14 
11 

9 
12 

8 



2.2 
5.3 
10.6 
15.2 



14, 
14, 
15. 
10. 



8.4 



12.1 



- 92 - 



Table C- (continued) 



Item 



States 



I llinois : Nebraska : North Dakota : Oregon 



Average age of client 
(in years) : 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



40.0 
47.5 
39.4 



38.9 
46.9 
38.5 



41.3 
50.4 
38.6 



45.6 
47.9 
43.2 



Size of household (in persons 
Percentages : 
1-2 
3-4 
5-6 
7-8 
9-10 
11 or more 



14.9 
42.6 
26.3 
11.1 
3.1 
2.0 



18.4 
42.2 
29.3 
6.3 
1.9 
1.9 



9.6 
36.0 
30.5 
11.4 
8.8 
3.7 



23.6 
36.3 
23.9 
10.3 
5.6 
.3 



Ave age size (in persons) 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



4.5 
4.7 
4.5 



4.2 
4.7 
4.2 



5.2 
5.0 
5.3 



4.4 
4.0 
4.8 



School grades completed 
by client 
Percentages : 
0-4 
5-7 
8 

9-12 
13 or more 



7.6 
22.6 
46.2 
22.1 

1.5 



2.0 
15.5 
56.3 
24.2 

2.0 



10.3 
21.2 
49.6 
17.4 
1.5 



3.3 
9.2 
53.1 
29.5 
4.9 



Size of farm (in crops acres' 
Percentages : 
Less than 20 
20 - 39 
40 - 59 
60 - 79 
80 - 159 
160 - 239 
240 or more 



34.0 
16.6 
13.4 
13.4 
20.6 
1.7 
.3 



9.4 
5.1 
5.5 
12.5 
55.8 
9.0 
2.7 



1.1 
.7 
.0 
4.0 
25.1 
29.8 
39.3 



67.4 
19.9 
4.0 
4.4 
3.1 
.0 
1.2 



Average number of acres: 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



49.2 
35.8 
50.3 



104.9 
147.2 
103.1 



216.0 
203.1 
221.9 



21.1 
20.5 
21.4 



- 93 - 



Table C- (continued) 



Item 



States 



j_ Ill i nois : Nebrask a : North Dakota : Orego n_ 



Net worth 
Percentages : 
Less than $500 
$ 500 - 999 
$1,000 - 1,499 
$1,500 - 1,999 
$2,000 or more 



51,4 
36,3 
8.0 
1.1 
3.2 



47.4 
27.7 
12.1 
9.7 
3.1 



61.5 
19.1 
6.3 
4.0 
9.1 



23.3 
28.3 
13.7 
9.9 
24.8 



Average net worth; 
Total 
Owners 
Tenants 



I 598 
1,799 
498 



p 608 
4,782 
439 



f 473 
1,696 
89 



$1,521 
2,406 
709 



Family income 
Percentages : 
Less than $100 
$ 100 - 199 
$ 200 - 299 
$ 300 - 399 
$ 400 - 499 
$ 500 - 599 
$ 600 - 799 
$ 800 - 999 
$1,000 or more 



5.1 
10.0 
16.6 
17.7 
22.3 
10.0 
10.3 
3.7 
4.3 



7.0 
10.5 
16.8 
13.7 
13.7 
10.9 
10.2 

6.3 
10.9 



2.6 
8.8 
10.7 
13.6 
17.3 
16.2 
18.0 
8.8 
4.0 



9.9 
4.1 
6.2 
9.0 

11.8 
8.1 

14.9 
9.9 

26.1 



Average income: 
Total 
Crops 
Livestock 
Other sources 



$427 
75 
192 
160 



$531 
183 
254 
83 



$508 
203 
134 
171 



$815 
164 
363 
288 



Owners 

Crops 

Livestock 

Other sources 
Tenants 

Crops 

Livestock 

Other sources 



423 
58 
217 
148 
427 
76 
190 
161 



1,036 
450 
443 
143 
509 
176 
251 
82 



483 
206 
133 
144 
516 
202 
135 
179 



987 
200 
466 
321 
653 
131 
266 
256